Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Definition of 'tribe'

I've removed

Linguists, however, define a tribe as a group of people who are mutually intelligible.

as it's incorrect--linguists tend to avoid the term 'tribe' and deal more with languages, which may or may not correspond with some notion of 'tribe'. Dougg 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A tribe is a soical group of people larger than a 'band' but rarely numbering more than a few thousand . See Renfre and Bahn where there is heaps re it with some relaed back specifically to Oz. Also see Mulvaney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.59 (talk • contribs) (1:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Culture: Walkabout

The Culture section seems to imply that the 'walkabout' is a myth propograted by Non-Aborigines. If so, it doesn't belong in the Culture section at all, but rather a section on misconceptions about Aboriginal people. Does anything have any insight on this? Ashmoo 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Walkabout does exist and is an intergral part of culture as its where Law/Lore comes from even if a lot has been lost re it. Slowly, as the aspects are found again, Dreaming paths are being reidentified and understood again. Its all pretty profound as in it, is the story of the forming of this continent in the very distant past as well as other things. Where once hills were just that, they take on new dimensions when the content if recognised, etc. All can be demonstrated scientifically which indicates Indigenous scientific knowledge was far ahead of that of the Europeans at invasion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.57 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Request for this article to be expanded

This is a request for this aricle to be expanded. I am a student and am doing an asignment on traditional aboriginal technologies. There is not a lot in this article about the tools they used and the various different technolgies they used before europian settlement. It would be much appreciated if someone with a good understanding of this area could expand this article as it would benefit any student or person wishing to find information on this topic. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.67.98 (talk • contribs)

I honestly mean no offense by this (which normally starts for an offensive reply, but bare with me), but this would be the perfect opportunity for you to contribute. Do a lot of research for your own assignment (By the way, I would strongly suggest against using Wikipedia as a source on any assignment), find some sources, and expand this article yourself (sources included) to help the next person who comes along. Trjn 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I was about to indicate the same sentiment as Trjn. You will learn a lot more by doing your own research, and can then contribute to Wikipedia with what you found. Wikipedia (and any other encyclopaedia) should not be used as a source for your assignment, but an overview to help you discover what you need to explore to get the details. Ideally, Wikipedia will provide references, external links, and a bibliography to help you find source materials for your assignment. We look forward to seeing your results. --Scott Davis Talk 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dreamtime vs Dreaming

Instead of using the term 'Dreamtime' the term 'Dreaming' is more appropriate. Aboriginal culture is multifaceted with the Dreaming being in the future as well as the past and above and below. 'Dreamtime' suggests that it was in the past and is over, where 'Dreaming' decribes how it really is i.e still happening.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.205 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Population

I removed the following para from the Population section as the cited source makes no mention of the number of people defined as Ind.Austs increasing faster than the birth rate. The source also directly contradicts the without being of indigenous descent' assertion (I suspect the original editor confused AND and OR).

The number of people defined as Indigenous Australians has increased faster than natural birth rate over the last century as a result of the reclassification of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin to include, amongst other things, those people who consider themselves to be Aboriginal, and recognised as such by their community, without being of indigenous descent.[1]

Ashmoo 02:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Nomenclature of deceased Aboriginal or TSI people

I have a suggestion regarding the cultural taboo of naming deceased Aborignal people. I was thinking of a template that could be inserted at the top of all pages that refer to Aboriginal or TSI people, something along the lines of "This article may refer to living or deceased people of Aboriginal or TSI descent." Perhaps with an image of the Aboriginal and TSI flags in the boxes at left and right? What do others think? I do not have sufficient expertise in the markup language to create one in template space, perhaps I will work it out myself but if there is a consensus that it would be necessary/helpful/polite, then anyone else feel free to create this template. Shiftaling 07:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. WP is not censored and we shouldn't needlessly clutter articles just because some people might have certain sensitivities. JSIN 10:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Similar things have been talked about here and here, but not yet implemented. I personally think it would be a good idea. --Ptcamn 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"I don't think that's necessary... needlessly clutter" is very much a POV statement from a certain cultural viewpoint - you say it's needless but the Wikipedia has warnings that prevent people spoiling their enjoyment of the latest Hollywood release. How US-centric. Personally I would like to hear the opinion of any person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent (basically anyone with a direct interest) add to the discussion. By the way, censorship of Wikipedia was NEVER MENTIONED Shiftaling 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Yes JSIN Aboriginal people do have certain sensitivities. We have every right in this world to. We have had to conform to so much alien justification for the past 218 years. Give us some cultural credibility. Didj man 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Media Watch, an Australian TV show which studies and reports on the media and its foibles, has published a NT journalist's guide to referring to deceased Aboriginal people which may be useful. I think the treatment of spoilers in movies should be a guide to how we handle this one. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Please see Talk:Black_people#POV and the discussion about whether Indigenous Australians are black people or not. --Ezeu 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the pointer Ezeu, the odd point of view being debated there seems to have landed here, with the following paragraph being inserted:
Because they have very dark skin, Australian Aboriginals are sometimes confused with Blacks, but genetic studies reveal that Australian Aboriginals and Africans are among the least related populations in the world
For obvious reasons, I think this line should be removed. Dougg 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The only relevant thing I can think of is that some Aboriginal people refer to themselves as "black". Which is a linguistic difference between here and America I guess? Snipergirl 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The term 'black' is not used to refer exclusively to people from (or derived from) Africa--throughout the world it's used to refer to people with relatively darker skin. In the USA of course the predominant 'black' population is people who originate from Africa, so of course the term 'black' when used there typically refers to such people (so I guess someone from the USA could come to think of this as the sole correct usage of the term). But in other countries where there are dark-skinned people who are not from Africa, the term 'black' is used to refer to them. So it is legitimate to call Australian Aboriginal people 'blacks' (whether or not it's polite is another question, but I know many Aboriginal people who quite happily refer to themselves as black). This is not a matter of 'confusion' and has nothing to do with genetics. Dougg 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


"Blacks" is a derogatory terminology discribing certain people as enemies of the white race. As Aboriginal people, we are insulted by this term. This is seen as a form of insult when used by non-Aboriginal people.Didj man 13:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But many people use the term 'black fella' don't they to refer to A&TSIers as a whole? Ashmoo 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure who "many people" might be - not ever in my hearing - needs to be referenced.--Arktos talk 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was speaking informally, in response to the previous poster. I'm from QLD and have hears Murris use the term (and 'white fella') many times. But you're right, anything that actually goes into the article itself needs to be referenced. That goes for all sides of the discussion. Ashmoo 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The exogamy rate for Australian Aboriginies is a whopping 69%. Most people who identify as aboriginal today are part bloods.

Premier 10:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Racism

While it is reasonable to assume you will find elements of racism pretty much anywhere towards anyone (particularly a minority), I don't accept POV such as "there remains the issue of incipient racism" without solid representation in the literature and no independant research. It's just too important an issue to have lying around begging the question Rpf 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw: Incipient means emerging/appearing. Something that remains doesn't emerge. Rpf 15:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This article while generally pretty good, is plagued with unsourced 'analysis' of the problems facing Aboriginal Australians. I put the {{Fact}} tags on a while ago, and I think they expiring date on providing sources is up. Ashmoo 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission published pretty extensively on racism in Australia, so provinding a fairly accurate description of racism in Australia should be possible. Racism. No Way. lists these publications as good sources.--Peta 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Matter of fact: I grew up under the Bjelke-Petersen regime in Queensland. I know what it is like to be different "because your black". I know what it feels like not be served in the shop "because your black". Until you can walk in my skin, you can't understand how that feels. Racism really hasn't changed much, it has just changed it's tactics. NOBODY can tell me I'm equal in this country until I have the same common-law rights to my land as every white hereditary title holder.

State of Aborigines today

While good, the article tends to provide a view of Aborigines that is true for only a small proportion. While outlining the traditional ways of life is very important, the article tends to ignore the reality of modern Aborigines. ie. Live in urban areas, follow Christian beliefs in line with the majority culture etc. Ashmoo 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article would be better without any sweeping generalisations. --bainer (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. I meant to say 'the majority of modern Aborigines'. Ashmoo 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article contains too many errors to be useful. Glossing over Aboriginal crime issues isn't useful, nor are the erroneous statements about the history of Aboriginal art. There are simply too many errors to even grade the quality of information at 'B'.

Find someone aboriginal to write this article or at least someone who wants to be accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.158.51.58 (talk • contribs) .

I'm interested to know what the 'erroneous statements about the history of Aboriginal art.' in this article are. While it's a very brief summary, it looks pretty accurate to me. Dougg 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Contact with Austronesians

Regards the following statement in the article:

Linguistic and genetic evidence shows that there has been long-term contact between Australians in the far north and the Austronesian peoples of modern-day New Guinea and the islands, but that this appears to have been due mostly to trade and some intermarriage.

I'm certain that this is incorrect, certainly as far as linguistic evidence goes, and probably also as regards the genetic evidence. Is there a reference that makes this claim? If not I'll be removing it. Dougg 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute that there has been long-term contact and trade between Aborigines of Cape York and the peoples of the Torres Strait Islands. The only reference I have to hand is "Guns, Germs & Steel" By J. Diamond but this isn't in any way a controversial issue amongst anthropologists. Diamond notes some lingusitic interchange between the groups. Genetic evidence I am not aware of. Given that the two regions were connected by a land bridge as recently as 20, 000 years ago I'm not even sure what genetic evidence of post isolation interchange would consist of.203.164.198.180 08:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's contact between Australians and Papuans, not Austronesians. It's certainly true that there has been long-term contact between Australians and Papuan people, both those in the Torres Strait and those on mainland PNG. But there is no real evidence of contact between Australians and Austronesians. Dougg 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you here. New Guinea is part of Austronesia. Papuans are Austronesians. There are several Austronesian languages spoken in New guinea. Is your objection simply that not ALL New Guineans speak Austronesian languages?203.164.198.120 03:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New Guinea is usually considered part of Melanesia, though linguistically this is not a very meaningful term. 'Papuans' are not 'Austronesians'. In fact, the term 'Papuan' is defined as referring to those languages of the area that are neither Austronesian nor Australian. Also the term 'Austronesian' to refer to an area is very rarely used and it's not clear to me what it would refer to: perhaps all the regions where Austronesian languages are spoken? If so then in New Guinea it consists of lots of small non-contiguous areas.

There are many Austronesian languages spoken in NG (I'm not sure how many, but surely dozens), and many more Papuan languages (hundreds). There are many Papuan languages very close to the Torres Straits--in fact all of the languages on the nearby coast of New Guinea are Papuan. The nearest Austronesian language is way off to the east. If you go to <http://www.ecai.org/austronesiaweb/AustronesiaASP/PacificMapLeaf.asp?mapleafid=L005> you'll see the Wurm and Hattori map of the area showing the location of Papuan and Austronesian languages. Finally, linguists have looked for evidence of contact with Austronesian lanugages in Australia and not yet found any. There is however clear evidence of contact with Papuan languages in the language spoken in the western/central Torres Strait. Dougg 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide a refrence that indicates that Papuans are not Austronesians then by all means do so. That would be news to me. An Austronesian in normal usage refers to a person living in Austronesia. The island of New Guinea is part of Austronesia and hence Papuans are Austronesians. New Guinea is indeed considered part of Melanesia. It is also considered part of Meganesia, and part of Australasia, and part of Oceania. None of these terms are mutually exclusive. Papuans are Melanesian and Austronesian and Meganesian and Oceneanian.
As for using Austronesia to refer to a geographic region, far from being rare this is the only usage I have ever encountered. I agree with the Wikiarticle on this subject: Austronesia is a geogrphic region encompassing those lands where Austronesian languages exist.
I also strongly dispute the claim that linguists have not found any evidence of Austronesian language in Australia. Northern Australian Aboriginal languages are littered with Austronesian words, courtesy of centuries and probably millenia of contact with Macassan traders and fishermen. I'm not sure whether you are disputing the Macassan linguistic influence on Aboriginal language or disputing that Macassan languages are Austronesian. I'm not a linguist but my understanding is that neither point is really up for debate.
All this rather misses the point of course since the disputed statement is that Indigenous Australians had contact with Austronesians, not with speakers of Austronesian languages. Those are entirely different things. If Papuans are correctly termed Austronesian by virtue of being inhabitants of Austronesia then there can be no dispute.

211.29.68.92 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Austronesian' was originally coined by Wilhelm Schmidt as a name for the Malayo-Polynesian family: the term has since been expanded to include the indigenous languages of Taiwan which are now known to be relatives of the Malayo-Polynesian languages. Thus the original term is a name for a group of languages. From this some people have started using the term 'Austronesia' to refer to the area in which Austronesian languages are found, extending from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island in the east, and from Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south. Also inside this area are found numerous other language families. Not everyone who lives in this area can be called Austronesian, any more than everyone who lives in Europe can be called 'Indo-European' (i.e. the Basque people). Would you insist on calling Vietnamese people 'Austronesians' because they are inside this area (look up Cham people)? The term 'Papuan' is often defined as being those languages that are neither Ausronesian nor Australian (along with a rough description of the region). The Papuan languages include a number of language families which appear unrelated, probably due to the extremely long period of time during which they have been in place. The Austronesian languages by contrast arrived in the area only in the last few thousand years. By definition, Papuans are not Austronesians. References? Try Austronesian languages, Papuan languages, or perhaps a tree-based encyclopedia:

The term Papuan was originally employed merely to distinguish these languages from the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) and Australian languages... Encyclopedia Brittanica (1984, vol. 13:977)

Or maybe a recent volume which brings together the latest scholarship on the prehistory of the Papuan peoples:

It was only towards the end of the 19th century that linguists realised that some of the indigenous languages of Near Oceania are not Austronesian and the term 'Papuan' came to be used as a generic term for any non-Austronesian language. Papuan Pasts: cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples (2005:xii)

You're correct that there has, in recent times, been contact between some Austronesian people (Macassans, and possible Bajau) and Australians, mainly in the Yolngu region in north-east Arnhem Land. This is thought to have been occuring for several centuries: sorry, I was thinking in terms of prehistoric contact (the Macassan visits are mentioned in numerous old documents). Also the paragraph in the article talks about contact with Austronesians from New Guinea--Macassans are not from New Guinea. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence of contact between Torres Strait Islanders and Ausronesians: there is, as i have said before, plenty of evidence of contact between TSI and Papuans.

I would be happy to see the information about contact with Macassans added to the article (I'll add it to my list of things to do), but I think it is incorrect for it to claim that there was contact with Austronesians from New Guinea. Dougg 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Dougg, your references only refer to what constitutes and Austronesian langauge or speaker. It seems that your objection is entirely based on linguistic grounds. If we accept that a geographic region known as Austronesia exists then Papuans are Austronesians by virtue of living in that region. Nonetheless since this is causing so much confusion, and since you (and so presumably many other people) seem to be unaware that Austronesia is commonly used to refer to a geographic region we should probably avoid the use of the term for the sake of clarity.
Might I suggest "There is evidence of genetic and linguistic interchange between Australians in the far north and the Melanesian peoples of modern-day New Guinea and the islands..". Thats should keep everyone happy.
Regarding pre-European contact and trade: I didn't mention Macassan contact because this section concerns origins, and nobody suggests that Australians originated from Macassan stock while origin from New Guinea is highly plausible. Pre-European contact requires at least a sub-heading under history. I was going to add the section myself if anyone ever gets around to fixing up the major mess we discussed below. Not much point adding this here when we don't know whether this article is about Indigenous Australians or Aborigines since that changes the facts. For example Tasmanian Aborigines never had contact with any pre-European people. But if you are going to make the addition it is essential to note that contact with Austronesians was not just in recent times. We know that dingoes were introduced C4000 ybp, and we know from genetic studies on kangaroo mites found on dingoes in Indo-Malaya that animals were taken from Australia to those regions at least 2000 ybp. So at the very least vicarious contact between Australians and Austronesians was occurring that far back. Not sure how far back writing goes in Indo-Malaya but I'm guessing that 4, 000ybp is prehistoric. Evidence of previous contact events comes from the arrival of technology such as ground-edge tools, microliths and so forth. Less compelling but still strong circumstantial evidence of prolonged contact with Austronesia.


BTW, are you a linguist yourself?211.29.68.206 08:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you define the term 'Austronesia' then? It was originally coined as a name for a group of languages, and the back-formation 'Austronesia' surely can only refer to a region based on that meaning. It can't refer to the entire area bounded by lines drawn between the farthest-flung Austronesian languages as then it would include numerous other groups (e.g. Vietnamese, as I pointed out above, as well as most of Australia, Cambodia...). So it is not the case that everyone within that area is 'Austronesian'. It can only refer to the sum of all those areas inhabited by speakers of Austronesian languages, i.e. lots of non-contiguous spots (although according to Austronesia it's sometimes used to refer to the Austronesian homeland). I would accept your compromise sentence though it should eventually be expanded. As for dingoes, while it's true that the timing of their arrival suggests that it was connected with the Austronesian expansion it doesn't prove there was direct contact. And yes, I'm a linguist, and work mainly on Australian and Papuan languages. Dougg 00:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

'Blacks' and Australian Aborigines

The comment about 'Blacks' and Aust. Aborigines seems out place in the introduction. Is this, which is a debunking of an 'urban myth' really so important that it needs to be in the intro? Additionally, it contains no cite for the assertion that it is commonly believed. Thirdly, Black has no universally agreed upon technical definition and it is a colloquial term. My impression is that Black in the US refers to people of African descent, while in Australia the term (much less used in that context) more often refers to anyone with dark skin. Ashmoo 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it's quite odd in the intro. It possibly belongs in the Definitions section to explain the Australian usage and sensitivities of the term, as it appears different to other uses. --Scott Davis Talk 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


"Blacks" is a derogatory terminology discribing certain people as enemies of the white race. As Aboriginal people, we are insulted by this term. This is seen as a form of insult when used by non-Aboriginal people.Knight crawler 12:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian native whites, etc.

Anybody born in Australia of whatever skin colour is an Australian native, from nascere, natum (Latin), to be born. This means they are aboriginal (ab + origine: from the origin). Further, "indigena" means "native" in Latin, hence those whites or people of Vietnamese origin, etc. are also indigenous. This debate has been beaten to death in New Zealand as well: white "pakehas" are NZ natives as well, never mind what Maoris say. It is strange that those who claim they want reconciliation in Aust. appear to be claiming exclusive rights to the appellation "indigenous".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.134.80.54 (talk • contribs) 28 September 2006.

You seem to be confusing, or perhaps are unaware of, the distinctions between the two senses in which terms such as indigenous or native are used.
Firstly, there is the general, everyday use of these terms as simple adjectives, and indeed they can be applied to any individual or thing originating from some given place.
Secondly, however, there is a more specific, collective rights-based, and cultural sense, and its use in expressions such as indigenous peoples has a particular, other meaning. That is, apart from its "everyday" meaning, the term has a real and specific usage found in national and international law, political, ethno-historical and anthropological academia, and specialised organisational and representational literature. Contemporary usage or identification as indigenous is an often quite explicit, even political act, made by the communities themselves or other organisations. See the main indigenous peoples article for a more detailed explanation.
These two senses can quite easily coexist, and to say that "...those who claim they want reconciliation in Aust. appear to be claiming exclusive rights to the appellation 'indigenous'" is just plain wrong, for those peoples who are recognised or wish to be recognised as indigenous peoples make no such exclusive claim (on the common, adjectival use you are referring to).
Providing the etymology of any given word is not the same thing as providing its meaning, either- words mean more than whatever the literal translation of their etymological roots may be, and meanings of words frequently are modified and expanded over time, although their etymologies remain the same.
So, the "indigenous" in "Indigenous Australians" as used here in this article has not the common, everyday meaning you seem to think it does. If it did, we'd only be talking about a distinction between locally-born and immigrants, which is a different matter altogether.--cjllw | TALK 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

@CJLL: <<collective rights-based, and cultural sense>> These political phrases are what continue to kill/cripple Aboriginals, especially women and girls, but also diabetes/renal disease/trachoma/media otitis victims. There is an absence of democratic, or (Maori) chieftain/headman-style defined power structures (as opposed to kin-based inter-clan fights, now wearying the next generation: see Colin Tatz, "Aboriginal Suicide is Different, 2005"), cf. also the fact that an Aranda man from far away had to intervene in/achieve the Perth native title decision 2006 because the locals were feuding. So implementing collective rights,ie rights to administer the currently harmful fragments of what used to be an interwoven culture before 1788, equals money and power gifts to power brokers and nepotists. Hence: native and indigenous in the sense you prefer to use them are current slogans designed to mystify power-plays and ratify intra-Aboriginal income differentials while satisfying the moral superiority of one section of the Australian white middle class vis-a-vis the other, which is "ignorant and racist". Perhaps all the allegedly weighty, Great and Good "specialised organisational and representational" (!!) bodies you cite might like to patent these words however, infringement of patent naturally attracting denial of tenure, refusal of jobs at the ABC, funding, etc.

The key question is what happens to increasing numbers of full-descent Aboriginals, esp. young males 10-25 yrs. (= 25,000 currently) in the NT, who live far away from any likely jobs. The fact that the hunter-gatherer existence they led 200 years ago is objectively preferable,in the eyes of urban Green voters, to Australia overshooting Kyoto CO2 by a wide margin in 2006 does not wean such men off their sit-down money. Port Keats to Fanny Bay Gaol and back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.61.192.88 (talk • contribs) 30 September 2006.

The terms you characterise as "political phrases" and empty sloganeering are not mine, but rather may be found in a great number of documents, legislative instruments, reports, etc concerning indigenous peoples' affairs, from indigenous groups, NGOs and governmental agencies (up to and including the present Federal government - eg here and here -, and so not the sole preserve of "white middle-class", "urban Green voters" and other stereotypical bogeymen.)
I was merely pointing out (since it was questioned) that the usage of terms like indigenous peoples in this sense is very well-established, and even formalised. As such, it is entirely legitimate to apply this sense here in wikipedia, as part of its job in describing such matters of notable encyclopaedic interest, and regardless of whether or not anyone here may happen to disagree with the concept, or how effective or otherwise such pursuits may be in remedying ongoing social issues.--cjllw | TALK 10:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediocre article; Causes of death

This article, while not mentioning eg Colin Tatz´s "Aboriginal Suicide is Different" (2001, 2005)conversely manages to quote almost nothing written on Aborigines before 1999 and adopts the familiar post-1980 PC, finger-wagging tone while giving few or no citations. The role of land-as-religion/Alcheringa pre-1788 is massively understated (is every Wikipedia writer an atheist or agnostic who cannot imagine religion?) and causes of death in nomadic hunter-gatherer Australian society are suppressed. Further, the male-female inequality of that society is whitewashed, presumably for obsessive fear of "racism". Note that women had no choice, there was arranged marriage as evidenced at least for the tribes mentioned by Kenneth Maddock "The Australian Aborigines" (1974).

This seems to be because the romantic pre-Lapsarian, Golden Age (cf.Hesiod) yearning of post-Leftist, identity politics-type, Anglo pre-historians/anthropologists leads to them ignoring: abortion, infanticide, cannibalism, warfare and geriatricide as adaptively necessary behaviours among nomadic hunter-gatherers in Australia. Underlying this is the conflict outlined by Steven Pinker (2002) in "Blank Slate", ie the politics of the 21st century observer dictates what gets said and written about pre-1788.

For Australian Aborigines, all of the above were observed by European observers (biassed!male!white!British!Christian!anti-Condoleeza Rice!) separately or as clusters in some bands at some time in the 19th century: see G Blainey, "Triumph of the Nomads", 1976, for the primary 19th century sources.

The fear, in the frantic moralistic jockeying for the tenurable financial favour of research-grant dispensing and career-making govt. and university bureaucrats - seems to be that eg indigenous legal rights in USA/Canada/Australia are somehow endangered if you give an unvarnished account of pre-invasion societies. But there is no logical connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.80.12 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2006

  • If you have all these refs then use them. Get off your behind and right instead of just cshallowly criticise. Please dont let up will you. And please get a wikipedian username so we can all argue out a mass edited consensus article. And sarcasm whilst often self-gratifieing may often mutual communication. Eric A. Warbuton 06:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Land Rights/Disputes

Why doesn't this article include a section on land rights under the "issues facing indigenous Australian's today" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.248.252 (talk • contribs)

Since when are TIs not Indigienous Australians?

Can someone please provide a reference that indicates that Torres Strait Islanders are not Indigenous Australians? I am Aboriginal myself, and work with numerous indigenous service groups. I have yet to encounter any group, whether govt. or private sector, that does not include TIs as part of their charter. Nor can I find a single online reference to indicate that TIs are not considered indigenous Australians.

Most conclusively all state and federal Inidigenous Affairs departments explicitely encompass TIs.

Unless someone can provide an unassailable reference that TIs are not covered under the Indigenous Australian banner I will convert the "Indigenous Australian" topic to stub that links to this article (which I will rename "Aboriginal Australians" and to the TI article.

This is a good article, and very well written, but to deny that TIs are Indigenous Australians is insulting as well as inaccurate and can not be ignored.


I've cleaned up the intro to the article a bit as I think it was hard to understand on this issue. I agree that it's clear that TSI are indigenous Australians who consider themselves distinct from Aboriginal people: I'm not sure that the intro was not saying this as it was a bit confusingly written. Also, I have removed the statement that:
Even the facial features of the Torres Strait Islanders are distinctively different from that of Aborigines.
--I think this is impressionistic, and therefore POV. Also, there is great diversity in appearance (facial and otherwise) of indigenous Australians, and also amongst TSI, so I think it is redundant and as well as not necessarily being corect (I have met people from Central Australia who could pass for TSI, and vice versa). Dougg 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course TI's are Indigenous Dougg. I love TI. I have a very good friend up there. We were on GE together but went all over. Cheers!


Thanks Dougg. And somehow you've even resurrected my short-lived additions re- TIs. I added those before I noticed the larger error in the intro.

That still leaves the probelm that we have an article entitled "Indigenous Australians" and fails to provide much basic information on one of the two major divsions of indigenous Australians. This isn't a trivial oversight, it makes the entire article both incomplete and incorrect. It is directly comparable to an article on Native Americans neglecting to mention Inuit/Eskimo.

Hopefully someone can add some salient points form the TI artclie into this one. Alternatively someone can follow my original idea and just rename this article "Australian Aborigines".

    • 'Aborigines is a term not used. Try Indigenous Australians or Aboriginal people, but use the pan Aboriginal term 'Indigneous' if referring to the TSIs as well as mainland.

But my major gripe has been cleared up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.198.180 (talk • contribs)

Indigenous Australian is used in two ways: to mean both Aboriginal and Torres Straiters, and to mean Aboriginal but not Torres Strait Islanders. So large parts of this page do only apply to Aboriginals, but not all of it. I think a split is needed, not a move. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In my academic and cultural experience Ben, Indigenous does not exclude TSI people unless you mean the word is sometimes used to note 'first people' which is another topic.


Ben, if you have any evidence that Indigenous Australian is ever used to mean Aboriginal but not Torres Strait Islanders I would love to see it. As I said I have an interst in this field and have never seen that usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.198.180 (talk • contribs)

The term is often used as an exact synonym for Aboriginal Australian, in cases where it seems to me that Torres Strait Islanders are not intended to be included. It's a sloppy and improper usage, but not an uncommon one, given the lack of a policially correct collective term for Aboriginals. Eg "For instance, an Indigenous Australian might say that they have Kangaroo Dreaming, or Shark Dreaming, or Honey Ant Dreaming, or any combination of Dreamings pertinent to their 'country'. However, many Indigenous Australians also refer to the creation time as 'The Dreaming'." [2] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) PS. Can you sign anything you add to a talk page with ~~~~. Thanks.
Ben, I can't see how that link suggests that Indigenous Australian is being used in a way meant to exclude TIs. If it said "many Australians refer to the creation time as 'The Dreaming'" it would still be perfectly accurate without implying that Torres Strait Islanders are not intended to be included. Many Australians do refer to the creation as "The Dreaming". So do many Aboriginal Australians, and many Indigenous Australian, and many female Australians. I hope you see my point here. Descriptors like "Australian" "Indigenous Australian" and "Female Australian" don;t imply exclusion of any subset of those groups. If this is an example typical of what led to your conclusion that "Indigenous Australian" is sometimes used in a manner that excludes TIs I can only conclude that you have simply misread. The usage does not warrant any such conclusion.203.164.198.180 08:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I also believe that "Indigenous Australians" is an encompassing term for TSIers and all of the various groups of Aborigines. This article got renamed about a year ago from Australian Aborigines due to some dispute I don't recall the details of. Rather than trying to replicate information from Torres Strait Islanders it would be better to try to tease out the Aborigine-specific parts of this article to a new one, and keep this article to discussing issues common to both/all groups. That's my opinion, anyway.
Ben, do you want to add something about (mis)use of the term in the definitions section, or do you think it's already adequately covered in the 4th paragraph of that section? --Scott Davis Talk 07:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. All Aborigine specific information should be removed from here and a new article, "Australian Aborigines", created. That way we remove the obvious imbalance in information along with a possible source of confusion. That will also shorten this artcile considerably (~ 50% I guess), a good thing since it is apparently well over otimum size.203.164.198.180 08:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the articles could possibly be merged, with three top-level sections, "Aboriginal Australians", "Torres Strait Islanders" and another one (for which I cannot think of a good name right now) containing all the content which applies to all Indigenous Australians. That's essentially the form it takes now, but with a little rearranging; Torres Strait Islanders is essentially a stub. --bainer (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you seperate Indigenous Australia in this manner you need to get permission from culture. Ther eis a concept in Oz called 'Ask First'. Its what is encouraged by Australian Heritage Managers including wide consultation with Indigneous Elders. For here to start changing how stuff is ordered in Oz re Indigenous Australians in 2006 ASK FIRST or whatever you do will have no veracity.
Bainer has a point. I thought Torres Strait Islanders was longer than that. Torres Strait Island languages has been split out, but it was shorter than I thought even before that. Even so, we have an article for many individual tribes/groups like Kaurna, Pitjantjatjara, Murri etc. Does it make sense to have Australian Aborigines for the concept between them and Indigenous Australians? --Scott Davis Talk 14:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and I've decided I was wrong. While Indiginious Australian is often used as an exact synonym for Australian Aboriginal, it's a wrong usage, one that excludes TI not by design but by accident. So I don't think we should be bound by it, and I suggest the 'heirarchy' be:

  • Indigenous Australians
    • Australian Aboriginals
      • Various Tribes...
    • Torres Strait Islanders

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, your suggestion above it totally outlandish. Do you have any heritage/Indigneous/arch or anything similar quals to add weight to your decision to reorder Indigenosu cultural stuff??


Bens suggestion above is totally inappropriate. It suggests Torres Srtait Islanders are not Aboriginal.

The correct term is Indigenous Australians.

Then the different areas are dealt with such as NSW, Victoria, WA, Western AL, EAL, TSI. etc.

'Tribes' is an archaic term used by Europeans in the 19thC but not in use ANYHERE regarding Indigneous Australia, today. Tribe? It has an archaeological/anthropological meaning but gosh. Nations (following language groups)is a term used these days. SO, Ben needs to get his context right. He can either do here from a 1800s invading Euro perspective with weird wonderful pompus terms indic ating stuff that obviously isnt understood, or support the article being presented in a 2006 manner along the lines of how stuff is presented by Indigenous Australians themselves, as well as being also presneted that way by Australian academia. Indigenous Austrlia is not European or American. It is specifically Australian. It isnt even akin to Indigenous American or Indigenous Canada. Non Australians many times, have totally no idea and that is a cultural thing.

I am Aboriginal. I was born in Oz. I am not Indigenous genetically though, (but am culturally).

Quadrant quote

We should include this information I found in an article:

"The proportion of indigenous adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-indigenous spouses was 69 per cent in 2001, up from 46 per cent in 1986, and the majority of Aborigines are now of mixed descent. Over 70 per cent profess Christianity (a fact which infuriates the Left) and only about 12 per cent speak an indigenous language at home. The vast majority of Aborigines do not want to live in separate communities away from the rest of the Australian population: in 2001 about 30 per cent were living in major cities and another 43 per cent in or close to rural towns, a considerable increase from the 46 per cent living in urban areas in 1971. Similarly, with over one in three owning their homes there has been a move away from traditional communal-type living."

[Source: Peter Howson, Pointing the Bone, Quadrant Magazine Australia, JUNE 2004 - VOLUME XLVIII NUMBER 6, http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=817]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.147.35 (talk • contribs) 2 October 2006.

Breaking this article up

This article now has a warning re its size. I think it's time it got broken up, in the same way History of Australia has been. Just very small, bite-size chunks which then lead the reader off to separate, hopefully more specialised, articles. Any suggestions?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.60.193 (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

Australian Aboriginies

Surely anybody born in Australia is indigenous?

    • To be Indigneous, you need to be descended from 'First People' not from last people such as the British. You can also be Indigenous if initiated into culture for specific reasons as Law is Law. However, to be Aboriginal for Australian legal purposes there are three requiremtns and that issue is about mainstream Australian law, not about Indigenous Australian cultural Law.

The correct terms for the coloureds is Australian Aboriginies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.178.8 (talk • contribs) 4 October 2006.

I am colured Australian. I am red.

Please refer to the explanation attempted earlier on this point above, here.
"Coloureds" is not a term you really see used very often these days...--cjllw | TALK 08:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The Australian National Museum uses the term 'Australian Aboriginals' for 'Aborigines'.

Crime

The neutrality of this article is in question. See here:

"This does not necessarily translate directly into a higher crime rate by Indigenous Australians; it has been alleged (e.g. by John Pilger in A Secret Country) that Indigenous Australians are more likely to be charged and imprisoned for a minor crime than a non-Indigenous Australian."

John Pilger is a dissident journalist and I am not sure he is a source worth quoting. He has some pretty wild and woolly ideas. Many of them are found in the pages of "A secret country".

For example, in that book he devoted a whole chapter to theories of CIA involvement in the downfall of the Whitlam government.

We now know today that there was in fact no CIA involvement in the so called "Constitutional Crisis" of 1975.

John Pilger's theory that Indigenous Australians are more likely to be charged and imprisoned for a minor crime than a non-Indigenous Australian is just that - one of his theories.

If we mention one of his theories about aboriginal crime in this article then it is only fair that we mention one of mine if that's OK with everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.178.8 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006.

If the 'theory' is your own, then no, that would not be OK. Pilger (whatever may be thought of his views) is at least notable, and what he's had to say on the topic can be independently verified (that he did say or write it). The opinions/views/theories of individual wikipedia contributors are, on the other hand, not notable; doing so would also be against the policy of No Original Research.--cjllw | TALK 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to second that. John Pilger is notable. Unless you are a notable commentator on Aboriginal affairs, your theory can not be included. Ashmoo 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But the fact is the coloureds are less likely to be charged and imprisoned for a minor crime than a decendant of the colonial population.

Do you know how much extra paperwork needs to happen when a person of colour is taken into lawful custody in Australia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.178.8 (talk • contribs) .

If these things are facts, provide reputable sources and you are free to include them in the article. Ashmoo 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pilger's theory is not a fact. I'll be DAMNED if it is!

We need one of those little boxes saying this article is under dispute until we can find what the facts of the matter are.

One explanation for the over representation of coloured folks in goal is that they plainly and simply commit more crime. I'll give you a documented scientific fact - the mean IQ of Australian Aboriginies is 62. Maybe that and not racism has something to do with imprisonment rates?

Pilger doesn't mention that in his crappy book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.178.8 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006

PLEASE sign your posts! IF this is a "documented scientific fact", please quote a reputable scientific journal, and the name and author of at least one of the refereed papers that document it. If YOU are the author, it's probably better that you provide the reference to it on this talk page and let someone else add it to the article. --Scott Davis Talk 11:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Presumably the anon contributor is referring to the data in Richard Lynn's latest Race/IQ book, Race Differences in Intelligence. However, apart from the highly controversial and contested nature of this work, the conclusions and significance of the "result" which the anon seems to be imputing are not borne out or mentioned there, or elsewhere. Whether Lynn's research constitutes hard scientific fact is something quite debatable, and debated.--cjllw | TALK 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about it. Statistically the mean IQ of Australian Aboriginies is 62 and I have added this fact to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.224.64 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 October 2006 [note added later: User_talk:Premier was most probably responsible for this racist drivel, it's an account he's used to evade a block.] → bsnowball 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The IQ of who wrote the above is 2 maybe.

Here is some human rights stuff:

Health:2001. medium age death - 51 years, no improvement in last 10 years. (Ring and Brown, 2002:629-630)

Since 1981 no improvement in infant mortality; three times the Australian average;(Taylor 2000, v)

Unemployment 26% excluding CDEP (Taylor 2000: 17)

Deaths in Custody:

Overall pre 1990: 12 per year; Post 1990: 15 per year Prison deaths: pre 1991: 4 per year; post 1991 9 per year. (Australian Bureau of Criminology, 2001:2 - 3)

Education

No post secondary qualification 1991 -> 2001: Indigneosu people: 90 -> 85%; Non-Indigenous people: 73 -> 65% (Gray and Auld 2000: 26; ABS 2001a 4; ABS 2002: Tables 101, 114, ABS 2001a: 4)

There is no CDEP at Mutitjulu and unemploment is 90%+

etc etc etc ad infinitum

Cannibalism

Should be note that cannibalism in ancient aboriginal society is a documented historical fact?

That the practice was observed by anthropologists at the time of European settlement has been noted by W.E. Roth among others in his monumental study "The Queensland Aborigines", 1984 fascimile edition, originally published as "Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines", Qld Gov't Printer, 1897.

"Though the prima facie evidence of the practice of cannibalism is very meagre, and any information concerning particulars is but charily given by the aboriginals, there is no doubt but that this custom, though gradually becoming more and more obsolete, certainly does take place within certain limitations throughout North-West-Central Queensland." (paragraph 293, "Cannibalism", p. 166, vol. 1, 1984 ed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.184.224.64 (talk • contribs) .

That source is quite outdated, and while it may still be useful for its linguistic work, it has no real anthopological value. There is a consensus these days that cannibalism was not practised among Indigenous Australians. However if you are interested in the topic, you may want to read some of the more recent literature on Eliza Fraser, relating to the role of the idea of cannibalism in European discourses about Indigenous Australians. --bainer (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "outdated" mean in this context? The fact that the document cited is based on observations made in the 1890s makes it more valuable, not less valuable, to a discussion about what may or may not have been past practices among indigenous peoples. What is the source for the sweeping statement that "cannibalism was not practised among Indigenous Australians"? Is it a consensus based on a desire not to be seen to be making pejorative comments about Indigenous Australians? Or a consensus based on evidence? What better evidence can there be for such a question than the writings of contemporary observers? There is a very similar debate about institutionalised infanticide among Indigenous Australians, which is now routinely denied although it is very well documented. Adam 01:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That the writings of W.E. Roth are old is irrelevant to the question of whether aboriginies ate human flesh or not. The man on the spot Roth claims that they did.

Lodged in state libraries around Australia there are the writings of people who claimed to have witnessed aboriginal cannabalism with their own eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.224.64 (talk • contribs)

The above is to do with hills devouring hills. i.e. its about the geology forming. dopes.

Please do not make anonymous comments. Adam 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Ideally, you should register. But at the very least, sign your posts. Thanks, Ben Aveling 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if the claims are outdated, it's still worth noting that some people have thought that they engaged in cannibalism, and show whatever meagre evidence there is.
R. M. W. Dixon's book Searching for Aboriginal Languages: Memoirs of a Field Worker mentions an instance of cannibalism, and he got his information in the 60s (plus he's generally favorable towards the Aborigines, so it isn't a case of attempting to portray them as brutal savages). --Ptcamn 06:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will delete Anon's comments until he or she has the courtesy to sign their posts. Particularly since this is the same Anon who has been posting defamatory comments at the Paul Keating article. Adam 07:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was prepared to tag:unsigned for a while, but not forever. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Attention User:Premier: It's good that you have now registered. But until you sign your posts they will be reverted. This is a pity because you do appear to have some knowledge on the subject at hand, and as I noted above I actually share your scepticism about the statement that "There is a consensus these days that cannibalism was not practised among Indigenous Australians." But no matter how "scholarly" your edits, your discourtesy and spamming of this and other articles will not be tolerated here. Adam 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I disagree that there is a consensus these days that cannibalism was not practised among Indigenous Australians. The fact is the historical record tends to favour distinct and widespread evidence of cannibalism.

One of the strongest sources is Eric Rolls', Sojourners (Brisbane: UQP, 1993 - paper back edit, see pp. 194, 196, 198, 205, 217) in which he is quite certain of cannabalism in Northern Queensland.

One of the most reliable observers was Mrs. Daisy Bates, who came to Australia as a correspondent for The Times to investigate the Aborigines in Queen Victoria's reign. In her book "The Passing of the Aborigines" published in 1938, she recorded her experiences over 35 years of living in or adjacent to Aboriginal settlements. Trusted by the desert tribes, and revered for her compassion and healing knowledge, Bates was known as "Kabbarli", or Grandmother. Bates' book records many instances of cannibalism, and that the Aborigines themselves took it for granted. Having lived for 16 years in the Ooldea region, Bates wrote the following:

"It was no unusual sight to see up to 100 of these cannibals, men, women and children, several of them but a week in civilisation, climb aboard an empty truck and go off to an initiation ceremony further up the line. Every one of these central natives was a cannibal. Cannibalism had its local name from Kimberley to Eucla, and through all the unoccupied country east of it, and there were many grisly rites attached thereto. Human meat had always been their favourite food, and there were killing vendettas from time immemorial; Every one of the natives I encountered on the east-west (railway) line had partaken of human meat, with the exception of Nyerdain, who told me it made him sick. They freely admitted their sharing of these repasts and enumerated those killed and eaten by naming the waters, and drawing a line with the big toe on the sand as they told over in gruesome memory the names they dared not mention... "

There is much more in the same vein, and of even more disturbing detail. Bates records the life and death of the feared cannibal "chief', Dowie, who by the age of nine had eaten four infants, and who later killed and shared the consumption of his five wives. Daisy Bates describes how she personally dug his grave.

Brownie 2002 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The analysis by Daisy Bates (Australia) has more recently been challenged, see Flinders University: News and Research Stories Unreliable Daisy Bates 14 September 2005 referring to a recent book. Paul foord 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting - thanks for that. Daisy Bates wrote a number of op ed pieces for The West Australian in the 1930s about alleged cannibalism, there was definitely a preoccupation with it in the media of the day. Unusual indeed, as it really didn't appear much in the media before that era.. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If Andrew Bolt cites his sources, then they would possibly be useful for the article, but Bolt is an opinion piece writer, not a researcher - not denying he does research for his articles. He has recently been under attack by the scientists he cites for misrepresenting their findings re climate change (see Tim Flannery in The Age 8 October 2006 & Andrew Bolt abused my research: climate scientist Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego, 5 October 2006), so going back to sources here would be a valuable check. Paul foord 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


I used to belong to a tradition that got me to eat flesh and drink blood.

Can you people place cannibalism discussions in context. If there are children here perhaps if you go talk about Micky Mouse.

Indigenous culture and Law comes from the land. Hills being born, eat other hills and also, reabsorb. This is cannibalism.

The tradiion I used to belong to, called Xianity, also practices eating human flesh and drinking blood.

Sympathetic is the same as actual.

Dont get too hung up on cannibalism discussions as all cultures did similar including the one you are all descended from whatever that may be, not just one.

ALSO, ROTH went on porno charges re some stuff he got Indigenous peopel to do so he could take photos. He was also part of the dominants so liked to put forward stuff that people all these years on, continue to get jollies off, it seems.

It does seem that this person, or people, above, have a bee in their bonnet about Aborigines and cannibalism. It's true that many cultures practised it. It was practised in the Pacific (Captain Cook in Hawaii) and even in Ancient Greece. It seems to me this person is trying to prove something else about Aboriginal people. I'll leave it to think about what that is. Hopefully in his/her research, they will discover some other interesting, amazing things about the resourcefulness and ingenuity of Aboriginal people, as well as their humanity.DRyan 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We all have our areas of interest. Aboriginal cannibalism is very interesting to me for no other reason than it is.

I don't think all the dozens and dozens of sources claiming it happened are all making it up. I can understand how a user of wikipedia would find the extent of this practice in aboriginal communities very interesting.

Premier 09:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

could those of you who are obsessed with the issue of cannibalism please keep a few things in mind: for obvious reasons these accusations are very offensive to many people. the current academic consensus happens to be that the pratise is rare/isolated, (those of u trying to marshall evidence below can't find anything very recent, things have moved on, indigenous people are now counted in the census, they're human beings, remember?) furthermore (as bainer above) there is a large body of scholarship documenting the fabrication by racists of similar reports all over the world, (hence the older the better isn't necessarily true in this instance) here here also isn't a bad start for exploring this area. if you look at the standards of evidence archeologists & anthropologists use when claiming cannibalism has taken place, you'll find they're very high indeed & there's a good reason for that: these unsubstantiated accusations are extremely insulting (this in terms of how they will be taken, the "don't get too hung up" bit only adds to the insult). so arguably the onus is on you to find real evidence before you even put it on this page otherwise, regardless of whether in good faith or not, you are simply perpetuating a racist myth: you would be upset if your families & people were arbitrarily libelled in this way. (i will find a source for the standards claim, the rest is common sense and hist. background you can explore yourself as noted.) & again if you think what i've said is heavy handed, plese think about what you are claiming and/or propagating. → bsnowball 14:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quote from Shirley Lindenbaum from University of New York in an abstract for a piece she wrote which addresses (and I believe agrees with) what you're saying: “The discourse of cannibalism, which began in the encounter between Europe and the Americas, became a defining feature of the colonial experience in the New World, especially in the Pacific. The idea of exoticism, like that of the primitive, is also a Western construct linked to the exploring/conquering/cataloguing impulse of colonialism. We now live in a world where those we once called exotic live among us, defining their own identities, precluding our ability to define ourselves in opposition to “others” and to represent our own culture as universal.” Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The only issue is did ancient aborignies eat human flesh? If God asked you that question and said you are going to hell for eternity if you get the answer wrong then, knowing what you know, would you say yes or no?

YES would be my answer. Definately YES.

124.183.172.88 09:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


An old saying goes like this: "The truth hurts".

It is interesting to note that some of the same people who get their knickers in a knot over the issue of aboriginal cannibalism being a documented historical fact are the same people who are quite adamant that various massacres of black people occured.

Yet when you compare the evidence for cannibalism to the evidence for the massacres quite often it is of a similar standard or better. I recall the time the National Museum of Australia had to remove an exibit which claimed a certain massacre of black people occured after historians were able to prove that it didn't. As a decendant of the colonial population lying about the actions of my ancestors certainly offends me!

We should make it clear that modern, urban aboriginies (and that's 75% of them) no longer eat human flesh. But mentioning that ancient aboginies did is a worthwhile academic exercise. If we only have evidence that it happened in certain, qualified circumstances then just outline what these were.

Aboriginal cannibalism is a bit like the holocaust - well documented. Anyone who outright denies either of them happened is a ratbag of the highest order. [highlight added by bsnowball]

124.183.172.88 03:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • incidental details: the immediately above lie about holocaust denial (highlighted by me, not original poster) was probably posted by the same individual behind User:Premier. compare the contribs: [3] & [4] same interests and same manner of editing with often a few corrections & changes of mind. it is possibly someone trying to 'discredit' premier but, this seems a little far fetched. draw your own conclusions
  • there is no use arguing with someone who randomly throws around accusations of holocaust denial so the following is addressed to anyone else who might be interested in finding out about the subject. i will only bother respoding to premier (& or 'semophile') when this purpose will be served. except who cld resist: interesting to note the hypocrisy regarding offence. i believe the current scholarly consensus is that those of us descended from settlers stand a reasonably chance of being descended from mass murderers and rapists. (damn, hope it is'nt inherited, so far so good in my case.) granted that area is also, ah, 'conflicted'. it's also another argument altogether.
  • back the 'debate': re my claim about sources, so far bad luck for anyone who wanted much of reasoned & justified. scientific american ran an article "Once were cannibals" in august 2001 of which the 1st 2 paragraphs are: [5] it has a section (pp 51-3) discussing evidential standards for 'prehistory'. i'll need to go to a uni library to find up-date sources for current aust. though if you're interested why not research up to date sources? due caution is advised if asking specialists (ie anthropologist, indigenous historians) they're just a little bit sick of this prurient... oops, this issue, it tends to come up a lot. they get (a little) bored w/ it.
  • also i'm not claimming cann. doesn't happen. there are even physically proven cases. it's just far more common in famines in large scale ("civilized") cultures than for ritual purposes in small scale ("primitive") cultures. (it's acctually very dangerous: no species barrier: all sorts of wierd diseases)
  • & again to anyone willing to think about this issue, pls also consider how offensive these accusations could be to first australians → bsnowball 13:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Not as offensive as false claims about "frontier wars" are to sections of Australia's Anglo majority.

Nothing can change cannibalism in ancient Aboriginal society being a documented historical fact. It must be given appropriate treatment in this article and I won't give up this side of eternity until it is.

124.183.172.88 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Biggest bloody stub I've seen in a long time! Regards, Ben Aveling 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-representation

I've just removed some material claiming there's a higher rate of self-representation in the courts in the Indigenous population. After some brief searching I can't find any statistics on this, all there seems to be readily available are some limited statistics on legal aid (this for example). Does anyone know of any sources on self-representation? --bainer (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bainer, they are going to self-represent if they get to local (Country in vic) Court and there is no Legal aid or Aboriginal Legal Aid solicitor for them. I have worked in the Courts. I have spent days pre court dates ensuring there is a legal Aid solicitor to have it pulled at last minute. People who have been summonsed to the Courts then have to self represent unless the Court on the day appoints a duty solicitor. Some may choose to self-represent though as it cuts out all that argie bargie between solicitors with little regard to the client, that happens. Its also far cheaper and many times, very effective.

I will check this but not in the next few days.

History section

The history section seems too long and deserves its own article.. I was going to call it History of Indiginous Australians or History of Australian Aborigines. I'm not sure what's the most suitable title. Help. Sofeil 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay it looks like the history section contain references to the Torres Strait Islanders, so the more proper name would be History of Indigenous Australians. I'm going to go ahead and create that article. Sofeil 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

The Mainland Australia section appears to be two sections in one. I'm going to extract materials related to culture and move them to a new section: Culture. Sofeil 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Title

I've grouped several sections together to make the page easier to navigate. --bainer (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Article

Out of interest, why are the two separate cultures (Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) grouped here under the term Indigenous Australians? I must say that in all my years I have never heard the term Indigenous Australians used to refer to these groups. Even the Federal government will ask if you are "aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander" in their forms and questionnaires, and I remember that university competitions ask the same. This term appears to be coined by someone not from Australia unfamiliar with the situation regarding this issue there. +Hexagon1 (t) 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay let's see how others respond to this. I can swing either way as long as there's consistency. Zarbat 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What rock has Hexagon been hiding under for the last decade? Has he heard of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? The Indigenous Portal? The Indigenous Times? Indigenous Australia? The WA Department of Indigenous Affairs? The AIHW Indigenous Australia service? I could go on and on. This is now the standard terminology for non-indigenous Australians (like Hexagon and I) when referring to indigenous Australians. There is no other generally accepted term, certainly not "Aborigine" (which is widely disliked) or "Aboriginal" (which can't be used as a noun). Adam 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Indigenous Australians → Australian Aborigines — See discussions here and here. --Zarbat 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This vote will close within one week, at 01:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Please vote on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support
  • Support, however the Torres Strait Islander references would have to be moved to the Torres Strait Islander article, as the TS Islanders are rarely grouped under Australian Aboriginals. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
  • The suggested name is utterly incorrect. "Australian Aborigines" is never used by Aboriginal people themselves, or in academia, or by government and other official sources. "Aboriginal Australians" would be the acceptable form. In any event, neither of those terms are applicable to this article since it deals with both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. Only two terms are used in this scope, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people", or "Indigenous Australians". Using any other term is inaccurate. --bainer (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Indigenous Australians is the correct term to use. Very few Indigenous Australians would call themselves "Aboriginal" but would call themselves Noongar or Ngarrindjeri or Pitjantjatjara or whatever they are - Aboriginal is actually a Latin word, and "aborigine" to me contains colonial connotations. Even the Macquarie references Indigenous as a term, and the ABC style guide and that of other media organisations recommends the use of (capital-I) Indigenous. Also agree with all comments made by Thebainer. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 22:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per all the reasons mentioned by the last two users. Zarbat 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, despite my initial objections, I believe now that indigenous Australians is a good collective term to refer to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, I would not use it to replace those terms, merely group them. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • I've heard the plural most commonly formed as Aboriginals, not Aborigines. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For the purposes of this poll those who believe the correct title should be "Australian Aborigines" or "Australian Aborginals" should probably vote "Support". Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any way we can setup a 3-way poll? Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably something like "indicate which name you prefer" would do. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a vote before we've had any discussion (that's if we even need a "vote" at all). Feel free to discuss options for page titles below. --bainer (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion consists of more than just you proposing the move. Please don't start any more "votes" without discussion first. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:VIE is an essay. WP:NC(CN) is a policy. I see no reason why a discussion and a vote can't exist simultaneously. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Naming conventions are guidelines, not policies. This means that they are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Even if you want to apply the guideline that you mention, you still have to show that the exact wording you suggest is in more common usage. "Indigenous Australians" is used by Indigenous people themselves, government and other official sources (unless they use the longer phrase "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders"), and academia. And if you really want to follow these guidelines to the letter, the guideline you mention says that unless there is disagreement about the scope of the article, the most accurate title should be used. This article deals with all the indigenous peoples of Australia, and as such, the only applicable terms are "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" (less commonly used), or "Indigenous Australians" (more commonly used). --bainer (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to say in my personal experience I've come across "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" more often than "Indigenous Australians". But I lack expertise in the area, and I'm prone to error as a human, so I can't say anything authoritatively. Could you back-up your statement that the aboriginal people prefer the term "Indigenous Australian"? Has any majority survey been done into this area? +Hexagon1 (t) 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I just think, no matter which side you stand, the currect status is unacceptable. You either have to call them Indigenous or Aboriginal and there doesn't seem to be any consistency. The only way this can be resolved properly is through these polls. Zarbat 05:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "unacceptable", isn't true we can use redirects to for consitency & shouldn't the fact that the term 'aboriginal' is often considered insulting (this is common knowledge in Australia) override the debatable claims about consitancy? (keeping in mind the point about 'guidelines' above frm User:Bainer) per User:Adam below, this process shld be abandoned. it may have been made in good faith but it is arguably minor quibbling (that is the particular proposal not User:Zarbat's contributions in general), have a look below, replying to Adam, Zarbat states this change is was provoked by an unsucesfull attempt to change another article the other way! this needs to be pointed out because what is being proposed will offend people. →bsnowball 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    I have not yet come across a single person offended by the term aboriginal in Australia (so I wouldn't say that's common knowledge). An aboriginal friend of mine even threw a party to celebrate the "culture and diversity of the Aboriginal people of Australia" on Australia Day (rather then spending the day celebrating the depressing Invasion Day). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article again?

This matter was discussed at length the last time the article was moved and I am firmly opposed to reopening this discussion, particularly at the instigation of an anonymous person who has apparently been banned for disruptive behaviour at other articles. The fact is that "indigenous Australians" is now the generally accepted term. Not everyone likes it, but it creates fewer problems than any other. Please do not reopen this question, which will involve further weeks of repetitious argument. Adam 08:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well a simple "Oppose" vote would have sufficed, but now you've given me a chance to explain what's going on here. This whole thing started when I tried moving Australian Aboriginal culture to Indigenous Australian culture. The move was opposed by a number of users claiming the correct term is Australian Aborginal, not Indigenous Australian. So I thought I put this idea to test and that's why we're having this poll. The other poll is taking place here. Zarbat 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "correct term," there is only a "most widely accepted term," which is indigenous Australians. Many indigenous people find "Aborigine" patronising and don't want it used, and we should accept that. (Aboriginal, by the way, is an adjective and shouldn't be used as a noun.) I'm not voting because that would be to recognise the legitimacy of the poll and bind me to accept the result, which I won't. Adam 09:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. This article should be located at Australian aboriginals due to WP:NC(CN). As much as I dislike that policy, it is currently a policy of the English Wikipedia. I quote: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". Australian Aboriginal is by far the most common name, used by the media, the government (which uses it alongside indigenous at about equal proportions) as well as the general populace. I believe it also to be a correct term, and saying "Many indigenous people find "Aborigine" patronising and don't want it used" is misleading, as no general poll on the issue has been conducted that I am aware of and you are most likely basing that on personal experience with a few Aboriginals. I've also reopened the poll. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Google is prone to ignorance, as I stated above, I have encountered the term "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" far more often than "Indigenous Australian", but that's just me, not sure about others. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is an adjectival phrase, as in "the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission." The noun would have to be Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and as I have said several times now "Aborigine" is no longer an acceptable name. Indigenous Australians have the right to be called what they want and not what you think they ought to be called. Adam 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet, you have not presented evidence for your belief that they prefer to be called indigenous, despite my numerous requests for it. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted this before: perhaps you missed it:

What rock has Hexagon been hiding under for the last decade? Has he heard of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? The Indigenous Portal? The Indigenous Times? Indigenous Australia? The WA Department of Indigenous Affairs? The AIHW Indigenous Australia service? I could go on and on. This is now the standard terminology for non-indigenous Australians (like Hexagon and I) when referring to indigenous Australians. There is no other generally accepted term, certainly not "Aborigine" (which is widely disliked) or "Aboriginal" (which can't be used as a noun). Adam 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't prove that the aboriginal people prefer to be called "indigenous", it proves that the federal and WA governments sometimes use that term. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
At least two of those links have nothing to do with a government. In conducting an extremely unscientific survey (survey size of four) in Perth on 9 November 2006 while travelling on a bus, it appears there is no consensus whatsoever amongst the people themselves, although they refer to themselves as "blackfellas" or "Nyungar" (note, no s). In parts of NSW I've heard "Koori" being used any time you'd expect to hear a descriptor, and the term's even been misapplied in other parts of the country to mean "Aboriginal" more broadly, but only correctly applies in south-eastern Australia. One of the broad problems we have here is that we're talking about hundreds of different groups who see themselves as distinct from each other in many ways, and indeed are in most senses. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ehm, you'll excuse me for not listening to the results of your bus-survey when writing this encyclopaedia... :D While your survey shows interesting results about the terms ""blackfellas", "Nyungar", and "Koori", it doesn't actually relate much to the move request above. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the debate over what this page should be called it is interesting to note that when the Australian Government officially recognised the Aboriginal flag it was styled the "Australian Aboriginal flag".

The flag must therefore represent these people called Australian aborignies.

Premier 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is the Aboriginal Australian flag, which represents Aboriginal Australian people, and the Torres Strait Islanders flag, which represents Torres Strait Islanders. That doesn't change the fact that all the indigenous peoples of Australia are collectively known as Indigenous Australians (or if you like the less common, longer version, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people). --bainer (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Who Claims There Was No Macassan Intermixing?"

Comment by anon user:

"There was genetic macassan intermixing. This is well recorded in Australian and and world archaeology, but also is still remembered culturally and reflected significantly in ceremoney and art, especially among the dhuwa and yirritja at Groote Eylandt and near Blue Mud Bay."

Hello anon. My original intention was to change all occurances of "Australian Aboriginal" to "Indigenous Australian", but some people have opposed this (see discussions here. So I've proposed this article be moved to "Australian Aborigines" to make things consistent. I understand this is a sensitive issue and that's exactly why I have not voted yet. Now if you have any more questions or comments, feel free to leave a message on my user page (or email me). Thank you, Zarbat 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous unsigned trolling

I am not going to get blocked under 3R for rvting the anon troller again, someone else can have a go now. I have asked an admin to block him/her. Adam 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No need Adam. Remove all their comments. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. They're banned for one year. -- Longhair\talk 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Help with aboriginal cannibalism sources

The article says this claim needs references: "The historical record tends to favour distinct and widespread evidence of cannibalism in Indigenous communities."

I want to provide these following sources but I do not know how to include them in the article. Can a fellow wikipedian help me please?

(My research was pretty good but if anybody succeeds in refuting any of these sources then we can just take out that source and leave the rest until they are refuted, if they are refuted.)

(Removed piece from hate site as per notice on main talk page, 10 November 2006 - check of history on this edit will show original text. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 14:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Premier 09:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


The way cannibalism is currently written up in the article gives the impression that aborignies may or may not have eaten human flesh.

Yet read the above authors are certain they did.

I am looking forward to seeing if anyone can refute these sources one by one by one.

124.183.172.88 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be argued that all of the above sources are POV. We are not here to "refute sources", we are here to decide what should go into an encyclopaedia, which fundamentally comes down to the publishing of verifiable facts. With regards to the veracity of these sources, I am aware of actual scientific studies done, complete with peer review, in the earlier part of last century which "proved" that Aboriginals were in fact a species of animal, and there was even a request from a European museum at that time to receive a stuffed specimen. I've unearthed sources from the 1930s-40s that suggest that newspapers (same ones that were printing pictures of the 1905 revolution in Russia describing Bolshevik Communists shooting on their people in a very different revolution 12 years later, with the heading "And Lang Calls This Bunk!") were promoting such views and paying researchers as columnists. Gives you a whole new eye on the sort of stuff Media Watch uncovers today - it's nothing on the old days when it comes to editorialism. As such I don't think that it falls within the realm of Wikipedia to document anything more than that such claims were made during the time period, and not offer any view one way or the other as to whether they were true unless and until some real evidence emerges. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued that all of the above sources are NPOV. The only issue is did ancient aboriginies eat human flesh in certain, qualified circumstances?

The answer would appear to be YES.

YES.

Premier 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I too don't know what is POV about those about sources which claim aboriginies ate human flesh. They either did or they didn't. And as the article says the "The historical record tends to favour distinct and widespread evidence of cannibalism in Indigenous communities."

This is a bit political really. Is EVERY one of those sources wrong? Including the great W.E. Roth?

How could EVERYONE who has claimed aborignies ate human flesh be wrong?

In the state library of Victoria there is even the memoirs of this bloke who has held captive for a time by aborignies in the colonial days. He spoke of refusing to particpiate in cannibal feasts his hosts would throw from time to time.

I might be able to track it down actually.

124.183.172.88 08:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal assimilation

Some futurists look at figures available today and predict that aboriginal assimilation is inevitable. They point in particular to the urbanisation rate of 75%, the exogamy rate of 69% and the fact that a majority of people who idenitfy as Australian Aborignies in the census are part bloods.

Should we discuss this in the article?

124.183.172.88 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a verifiable (i.e. ABS) source for this information (the percentages given), one can state the facts as verified. However speculation as to what *may* happen falls outside of the bounds of Wikipedia's scope. In Wikipedia, WP:V applies, and I quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is not possible to verify a speculation, by definition. Many things over the years have been claimed to be inevitable and subsequently proven otherwise. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the exogamy rate for Australian Aborignies has increased from 46% in 1986 to 69% in 2001.

By way of comparison in 1990 the corresponding figure for African Americans was 3.5%

Premier 03:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed discussion again

The same discussion that was previously archived has been brought up again and again. I've now removed it completely after discovering where those users have been obtaining their "sources" about cannibalism: the selection of quotes has been copied wholesale from this page, on the Heretical website, belonging to white supremacist and neo-Nazi Simon Sheppard, and filled with various delightful pieces of original research. I think it's safe to completely discount this site in terms of it being a reliable source for anything other than Sheppard's opinion.

If people really want to write some content about cannibalism in Australia, based on real academic sources, they are more than welcome to do so. But I think we've reached the point where comments in the same vein as the ones archived will simply be removed. --bainer (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)