Talk:Indigenous Australians

Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 1

Capitalisation of Indigenous

What happened to the article Prominent Indigenous Australians?? It was there a while ago Cfitzart 05:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's Prominent indigenous Australians. Indigenous is an adjective, not a proper noun. Adam 06:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous is lowercase when in ordinary use as an adjective, as is aboriginal. But they both should be capitalised in this context, surely. --bainer (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"Indigenous" and "aboriginal", as adjectives, mean exactly the same thing. "Aborigine" became established as a proper noun designator (that is, a name) for all the indigenous people of Australia except the Torres Strait Islanders, and thus acquired a capital "A." "Indigenous" is not meant to be merely a substitute name, which would be pointless. It is meant to be used as an adjective with a lower case "a", qualifying the noun "Australians." This makes two points: that the indigenous Australians are Australians, and that they are not a undifferentiated category but include many peoples who self-identify under various names. Adam 09:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice many of the articles modified to replace Aborigines and aboriginals(sic) with indigenous Australians are capitalising Indigenous which looks weird in the middle of a sentence since it isn't a title. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Style Manual for authors, editors and printers (Sixth edition) ISBN 0701636483 states that "Indigenous. Capital I; when referring to Australian Indigenous peoples nationally" Paul foord 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Aborigines or all indigenous Australians

A recent edit summary removed a heading, with a comment along the lines of "doesn't need separate 'Australian Aborigines' heading - the whole article is about them". I think the heading was valuable, but seek consensus rather than immediate reversion (due to other edits): This article is about all indigenous Australians, which is usually taken to mean Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders (and perhaps Tasmanian Aborigines separately). As such, if parts of the article are specifically not discussing TSI people, it is appropriate to put it under a heading of Australian Aborigines or similar, with the expectation of farming out a daughter article again when that content becomes large enough. Perhaps other parts of Australia are different, but here if someone says "Indigenous Australians", they are deliberately including TSI people as well as Aborigines, which looks really odd when reading an article about a remote community a few hundred kilometres from Alice Springs for example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was the person who put the Australian Aborigines heading because the article is not all about them it is about Indigenous Australians. Paul foord 10:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I can see why you would do it in contrast to Torres Strait islanders, since the section it was above - the tribes articles - I dont think mentions Torres Strait islanders. The heading might be valuable, but the section was about communities/tribes, would it be better to rename it "Australian Aboriginal communities"? Cfitzart 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of renaming the articles was to get rid of the word "Aborigine," which is disliked by most politically active indigenous people, and replace it with the term "indigenous Australians". This is a description, not a name and thus doesn't take a capital "I". The Torres Strait Islanders are a subset of indigenous Australians who have a specific identity. Adam 10:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"The purpose of renaming the articles was to get rid of the word "Aborigine," which is disliked by most politically active indigenous people" - is this an encyclopedia of what is, or what "politically active people" (of any race) would like it to be? 58.104.84.50 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have been a trigger to these wholesale changes (by proposing harmonisation of the category structure at the Australian noticeboard), and removal of "Aborigine" was not my intent. I have seen claims of this dislike, but could somebody please provide a reference for it in the article? At the moment there is an unreferenced "Some indigenous Australians consider the term "Aborigine" derogatory, linking it to negative aspects of Australia's colonial history." which is about as useful as "Some Australians consider the term 'White' to be derogatory." being put in the article on White Australia policy. As I understand it, Australia has between two and four broad groupings of indigenous people (Aborigines are one of these, but only Torres Strait Islanders and Tasmanian Aborigines get their own articles at present), but is really much better described as having had around 300 separate indigenous peoples. The article as it stands does nothing to clarify this to a reader with no background information. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to Cfitzart and Adam Carr. There are main articles on Australian Aboriginal tribes (better stated as clans, groups and communities), music, art and languages. These properly fit under a heading, separate and distinct, from Torres Strait Islander. The argument about 'most politically active indigenous people' seems problematic. I have contact with people whose ancestors who have lived here since before white settlement and they do not object to the use of the term Aboriginal Australians. Given that it is common usage, among most of those people themselves, and generally understood, then in an encyclopaedia, I believe it is appropriate to use the term. The articles on art, music, and language are not about Torres Strait Islander. Paul foord 13:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Aboriginal Australian" is certainly preferable to "Aborigine". I don't mean to suggest that there is unanimity in the indigenous community about what name should be used: if there was it would be a much easier question than it is. But I think we had to get rid of "Aborigine" in the title of our "flagship" article on this subject. I am less fussed about the adjectival use in the articles you mention. Adam 14:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did we "have to" get rid of "Aborigine" and "Aboriginal"? If the majority of the people to whom it refers themselves use the term, why should we bow to misguided pressure from the PC camp? What happens when "Indigenous" becomes the most common term, will we have to start using "differently-gened"? If it was a deliberately offensive word, like savage, or seppo, I could understand it but in this case no, there's nothing wrong with "aboriginal". In any case the bottom line is the common usage argument, IMO. --Russell E 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of "PC political camps" -- 'Aborigine' is widely accepted in academic fields to be unacceptable as a proper noun for indigenous Australians. Rather it refers to aboriginal peoples around the world. 'Aboriginal' as an adjective is acceptable, as this distinguishes from 'Torres Strait Islander' that 'indigenous' encompasses. It's actually preferable not to generalise at all considering indigenous Australians come from as many different cultural heritages as the states of Europe... http://www.uq.edu.au/about/index.html?page=5325&pid=5317 203.15.35.100 09:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Ro

How can Aborigine (with a capital A) be so general as to refer to any indigenous people anywhere in the world, but Aboriginal is specific to excluding TSI? Surely they are noun and adjective forms of referring to the same group(s). --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians are the people who ...

Indigenous Australians are the people who lived in the Australia and its nearby islands before the arrival of European settlers in 1788...

To me this text suggests that Indigenous Australians are all over 200 years old. "A people who..." or, preferably, "the people descended from those who..." would give the correct impression. But I hestitate to change it in case the current wording is the norm in history, ethnography or whatever... --Rkundalini 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with your concern. I reworded it accordingly -- Ian ≡ talk 03:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed portions of article

I noticed comparing the article with an older version that there is quite alot of text that has been removed. Is any of this useful for the current article? ---- Cfitzart 05:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC):

1)This means there have been more than 1250 generations in Australia. The 48,000 BC date is based on a few sites in northern Australia dated using thermoluminescence. A large number of sites have been radiocarbon dated to around 38,000 BC, leading some researchers to doubt the accuracy of the thermoluminescence technique.

2)The idea that Aborigines were primarily desert-dwellers is in fact false: the regions of heaviest population were the same temperate coastal regions that are currently the most heavily populated. These coastal populations were quickly absorbed or forced off their land, however, so the traditional aspects of Aboriginal life survive most strongly in areas such as the Great Sandy Desert where European settlement has until recently been sparse. In all instances, technologies, diets and hunting practices varied according to the local environment.

3)In 1770, Captain James Cook took possession of the east coast of Australia and named it New South Wales in the name of Great Britain.

4)The number of violent deaths at the hands of whites is still the subject of a vigorous and politically-loaded debate, with some figures—notably Prime Minister John Howard—rejecting what Howard terms "the black-armband" view of Australian history. Figures of around 10,000 deaths have been advanced by historians such as Henry Reynolds. Historian Keith Windschuttle claims such numbers are not backed up by documentary evidence, finding evidence existing only for a much smaller number. Reynolds attacks Windschuttle's interpretation of the existing evidence, argues that the documented proof that Windschuttle requires is unlikely to be available, and questions Windschuttle's rejection of other forms of evidence such as oral history.

5)Entire communities in the moderately fertile southern part of the continent simply vanished without trace, often before European settlers arrived or recorded their existence.

6)Thousands of Aboriginal workers across several generations lost an estimated $500 million because of the Queensland Government's negligence, through diverting withheld wages to raise government revenue, and through misuse of Trust monies. There has been a similar scandal in New South Wales, where 'stolen wages' have been estimated at between $64 and $80 million dollars

7)During the first half of the 20th century, native welfare boards were established in the various states. These instituted a policy of separating children from their parents based upon racial stereotyping. Pale-skinned Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their families, so that they could be brought up in a European manner. Aboriginal parents often darkened up their children to keep them. This aspect of Aboriginal history is also open to considerable debate. See Stolen Generation.

8)The Australian Constitution originally did not permit indigenous people to be counted in the census (except under the category, 'Flora and Fauna'), thereby effectively denying their right to vote.

9)The Australian government has begun a process it calls "Reconciliation". Some notable former Prime Ministers, such as Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser have made many symbolic gestures and speeches in support of respect for Aboriginal culture. Many Aboriginal leaders such as Isabell Coe reject such moves, demanding actual sovereignty instead.

10)Before the British colonisation, there were a great many different Aboriginal groups, each with their own individual culture, belief structure, and language (approximately 300 different languages existed at the time of European settlement). These cultures overlapped to a greater or lesser extent, and evolved over time.

The first stage of my rewrite contained the following sentence, which someone has deleted: "This article describes Australia's indigenous peoples, their prehistory and history, and their present circumstances. For the history of Australian government policy towards the indigenous Australians, see Australian governments and indigenous Australians." I still intend writing this second article, perhaps this weekend if I get time. I deleted some of the above material because it fits better in the proposed second article than in this one, which should be about indigenous Australians themselves. Some of the earlier stuff I deleted because I thought it was repetitious or too detailed for an article of this length. Adam 09:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite greatly improved the article, just thought that any deletions should have been discussed though, because it wasnt clear that some of it was going to be moved. I suppose its 4, 6, 7 , 8 and 9 here which would be suitable for the government relations article? Cfitzart 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes - 8 is also factually wrong. If you want to restore some of the others I am not going to argue about it. Adam 09:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How about I put those ones in the new article, to make a start on it? (just done) Restoring all of them would put the article over 32k Cfitzart 09:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So long as no-one looks at it for a while :) Adam 10:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What about particular groups?

Is it possible that we could attach to the article links to particular groups? I have added some detail to the Kaurna group and I would like this linked to this page. How about working on some other particular groups? Frances76 11:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Australian Aboriginal tribes article has info on groups which link to the main article on them. I have added Kaurna to the list there --- Cfitzart 12:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers :) Frances76 22:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No agriculture?

There is evidence to suggest that some indigenous communities did in fact have systems of agriculture in place for growing yams etc (it is not true that no indigenous plants are able to be cultivated) and there is significant evidence pointing to the farming of, or at least sophisticated management and culling of, populations of fish and kangaroo... What do we say about editing that bit or maybe making a new page about 'Bush tucker'?

You're welcome to edit the page, Be bold. There already is a page Bush tucker though it is pretty short right now Astrokey44 05:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture means the deliberate annual planting and harvesting of food plants. Management of food resources, which all hunter gatherers do, is not the same thing. I agree that it is not true that there were no cultivable plants in Australia (although I'm not sure the yam is native to Australia). But the development of agriculture was a response to scarcity caused either by climate change or population growth, and the indigenous populations in fertile areas never experienced sufficient scarcity to make the additional labour required by agriculture necessary. Population was controlled through infanticide, which the article should mention. Adam 06:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'native Yam' or 'Yam Daisy' (Microseris scapigera) was native to southern Austrlia from alps to the coast. It was a staple food. It has an unusual genotype which points to it human manipulation in the past. I agree that to use the word 'agriculture' cant be allowed however the following phrase ' as there are virtually no indigenous plants in Australia which can be cultivated 'is hard to sustain. Plants arent cultivatable. They become so by human genetic manipulation. Anyway I think that the phrase is redundant-(I hate the word virtual) and theres no need for it.Eric A. Warbuton 06:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm astonished to say I agree with Eric. Adam 06:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

But to say that 'the Aborigines did not practice agriculture' without the 'no plants that can be cultivated' sentence implies that it was possible for them to have practiced agriculture, which they could not due to the lack of there being any crops. None of the indigenous plants could be cultivated on the scale of say, wheat, maize or rice. ---- Astrokey44 08:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Several species of wattle seeds are used to make something like flour, and they could be cultivated in a similar way to how tea and coffee are cultivated, but it's easier not to bother. And what's to say that kangaroo grass or any other grasses could not have been cultivated in a similar way to wheat, rice or barley, just because they have not been? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

From agriculture: "Agriculture is the process of producing food, feed, fiber and other desired products by the cultivation of certain plants and the raising of domesticated animals (livestock)." And from agriculture on Wiktionary: "The art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and the rearing and management of live stock; tillage; husbandry; farming." Nothing about annual planting in there, and the definition is not limited to plants. It seems the central concept is "cultivation". --bainer (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another example of the constant tendency at Wikipedia to redefine things in a more "inclusive" way so as not to offend PC sentiment. To suggest that hunter-gatherer societies didn't practice agriculture seems vaguely offensive to the PC soul, because it suggests they were "primitive" - a very bad thing to suggest - and because is more "progressive" to farm than to hunt (a false assumption, as I explain below). So we redefine agriculture to include whatever it is that hunter-gatherers do, thus offending no-one but rendering the word meaningless. Agriculture is what farmers do: they plant seeds and harvest crops, and they domesticate animals for food. Hunter-gatherers hunt and gather. They manage naturally occuring plants and animals in various ways, but they don't plant crops or domesticate food animals. Indigenous Australians did the latter and not the former. There is nothing derogatory or pejorative about stating this. Adam 12:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an assumption here that people will and should practise agriculture if it is possible for them to do so. This is a misunderstanding of social evolution, which, like biological evolution, is the result of the pressure of natural selection. People only developed agriculture when and where they were forced to do so by scarcity. Farmers have to work much harder than hunter gatherers in temperate areas. If a population can live well by hunter-gathering, it will keep on hunter-gathering for ever, unless acted on by external forces. Adam 12:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

i agree that there is a false assumption that agriculture is better than hunter-gatherer etc, but i think that there is a need to mention the systems of land management used as an explanation that hunter-gatherer doesn't mean that indigenous Australians didn't participate in the management of the land; there seems to be a belief that indigenous people associated differently with the land and this was how the whole concept of terra nullius came about.. recognising that in fact indigenous people impacted upon, managed, and engaged in food production i feel is necessary to ensuring the correct portrayal of indigenous culture ~Ro

Adam - please corroborate your claims that indigenous populations were controlled through infanticide?

---

Why do i constantly find attacks to political correctness on wikipedia? What's so wrong about political correctness? Our culture is shaped by the language we use, and describing things correctly and inclusively aids the unbiased understanding of issues... presenting all sides of the argument seems to come under criticism of being 'PC' and obsessive about detail, but given that we are creating a document of some degree of truth, why is seeking to portray things as correctly and inoffensively as possible such a bad thing??

---

In response:

• Please sign your comments
• I am all for a detailed description of the many sophisticated ways in which indigenous Australians managed their food resources, provided this is not described as agriculture.
• There are good sources on Aboriginal infanticide and I will try to access some next week.
• Describing things correctly is often in conflict with describing them "inclusively"
• Describing things correctly is frequently in conflict with describing them "inoffensively," since many people take offence at the truth.

Adam 09:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

On infanticide in pre-1788 indigenous society, see Gillian Cowlinshaw, Infanticide in Aboriginal Australia, "Oceania," XLVIII No 4, June 1978, 262. Cowlinshaw (Dept of Athropology, Sydney Uni), based on a study of early eyewitnesses and other sources, gives estimates that up to 30% of newborns were killed in some parts of Australia. Categories killed almost automatically were twins, infants with deformities, infants which gave pain to the mother during delivery, and infants born while the mother was still breast-feeding a previous child - which together would have been a significant proportion of all births. In some places a woman's firstborn child was always killed. Various cultural and/or religious reasons were usually cited for these practices, but the origin for them is obviously that in a mobile hunter-gatherer community, which must constantly follow its food sources, there is a strict limit on the number of infants that can be cared for. Cowlinshaw disagrees with the view that infanticide was a conscious device for population control (but she cites other writers who do hold this view). It is not however necessary to argue that indigenous people had a conscious desire to limit population through infanticide, any more than it is necessary to argue that giraffes had a conscious desire to evolve long necks. Natural selection drives both species and human societies in certain directions. The effect of infanticide in hunter-gatherer societies (not just indigenous Australian society) was to limit population and thus reduce pressure on food sources, and those groups which first practised it gained an evolutionary advantage which in time led the practice to become standard. As soon as Europeans arrived, of course, the indigenous economy was destroyed and the indigenous population fell sharply, ending the necessity for the practice, and European disapproval led to its rapid disappearance. Now that I have looked this up I might do an article on Infanticide in indigenous Australia. Adam 21:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues

I believe that this Wikipedia article needs to present more balance in regards to contemporary issues facing Aboriginal Australia. There seems to be a subtle biased view within the article. Constructive criticisms (fact based without the subjectivity of opinion) of Aboriginal Australia need to be available to balance the information presented, especially for the international audience.

For example, the main article mentions the fact that Aborigines live on average, 20 years less than the rest of mainstream Australia. This statement, left on its own, can lead to varying conclusions for the uneducated, ie: its's the Anglo Saxon's fault. It is a pity that life expectancies are not available for Aborigines circa 1788 for comparison. I believe that the points of poor personal hygeine and poor diet by Aborigines, especially in remote areas are the main cause of the shorter lifespan. Add in the fact of high rates of alcoholism, domestic violence, drug addiction, petrol sniffing, etc... these are main contributing factors in regards to teh lifespan issue.

Why aren't major instances of anti-social behaviour mentioned, for example: Palm Island riots, Redfern riots?

I believe that there also needs to be a subsection of the main article that highlights the failure of government policy in regards to positive discrimination. It just hasn't worked, and has created a destructive welfare culture. This has led, especially during the last generation, of people claiming Aboriginality simply for financial benefit (ie: Geoff Clark, whose father is Scottish). User:Michael Potts 11:30pm 9th November, 2005.

You might want to collect data on the lifespan of the European population in 1788 before you start making comparisons. Life expectancy has risen across the board since records started being collected. The life expectancy of indigenous people in 2002 (56 years for men) was equivalent to the average of the total population in the first decade of the 20th century [1]. The picture painted by all the statistics is that the healthcare system is delivering benefits much more slowly to indigenous populations. --bainer (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael Potts's point I think is that these statistics need to be seen in a social and historical context, and I agree. The fact that indigenous people have much poorer health on all statistical indicators is undisputed, but the real debate is around the reasons for this. It could be argued (not necessarily by me), that if a population chooses to live in a remote location where there is no possible employment, lives on junk food, drinks too much and allows its kids to sniff petrol, of course it will have poor health outcomes. This is a very complex debate. Adam 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And to anyone arguing that, the reply could be given that the largest indigenous population is in Sydney's western suburbs, and that the most significant individual populations are mainly in rural/regional centres in Queensland [2]. I think it might be useful to mention that the life expectancy of indigenous Australians is probably higher in 2005 than it was in 1788. But the increase over the same period is much less than the health system has delivered to the general population. I can't find any statistics on life expectancy for the 19th century, but given that the indigenous population declined from ~300,000 in 1788 to 60,000 in the 1920s, the life expectancy must have been much lower then. And although indirect causes such as disease may have been the main cause, this still points to a failure of the health system. --bainer (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Bainer, you are quite correct when stating that the largest population centers of Aborigines are located in NSW and QLD metropolitan and regional centers. However, I have to disagree with the wording of your statement, 'failure of the health system'. Personally, I see this statement as an indirect conclusion that 'white people are to blame'. There is only so much governments and charitible organisations can do, especially when there is a wide array of infrastructure to support them in large population centres. The old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but not make them drink" is very appropriate here. The main issue that does seem to hold back Aborigines is personal responsibility. The excuse of discrimination is holding less weight as time goes on, as it becomes more harder to visually distinguish who is an Aborigine, due to the fact that anyone can be one (all you have to do is identify as one, and be accepted into the community). So, for the residents of Redfern, etc... who live in a major international city, what excuse do they have, when there are schools, hospitals, readily available? Like I mentioned before... personal responsibility. Paternalism just does not work, and leads to the destructive welfare culture... thankfully the nation is starting to realize this. Another problem is 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. If people do have a poor opinion of Aborigines, their own self-actions don't help - for example: Palm Island Riots, Redfern Riots, high rates of illiteracy / alcoholism / drug dependancy (kava, marijuana) / petrol sniffing, etc... Aborgines were made citizens during the 1960's, like all Australians, citizenship comes with rights, but it also comes with responsibility. Anyway, how can we sum up these realities into the main article? User:Michael Potts 4:40pm 15th November, 2005

Indigenous Tasmanians

Hi. I moved the Tasmanian Aborigines to Indigenous Tasmanians to remain consistent. Was that was the correct thing to do, or should I change it back? Any thoughts? --Hottentot

I have never heard "Indigenous Tasmanians" used. The term is "Tasmanian Aborigines". There is no confusion there about both Australian Aborigine and polynesian communities that I am aware of. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The last time I looked Tasmania was part of Australia. Adam 11:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming of groups

I have a question in relation to the conventions that should be used in naming different groups (and articles on them). The Spinifex people are also called the Pila Nguru, a name I expect comes from their tradition - it is not explained in the article. In selecting article titles for Indigenous Australian groups what criteria should be used? The List of Australian Aboriginal tribes is based on Norman Tindales 1974 book and may be dated. Paul foord 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we need to try to go beyond the Wikipedia:Naming conventions Paul foord 10:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(What) Who is an (i)Indigenous Australian?

I would be interested to see some discussion regarding the intermarriage of indigenous Australians with colonial Australians for a couple of reasons:

• this first is that I believe the legal definition for someone to be able to call themselves Aboriginal is noteworthy and of relevance particularly in the population stats,
• secondly I am seeing an increasing number of documentaries lamenting the lack of interest of young indigenous Australians, particularly those living in and around cities, to learn about their history and traditions which is causing their traditional culture to increasingly disappear with each new generation.

I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons why this is occurring but currently the article doesn't talk about it at all. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

ABS definition

See the ABS website

BACKGROUND INFORMATION - WHO IS INDIGENOUS?

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF INDIGENOUS?

In Australia the term Indigenous is used to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Therefore, officially Australia has two groups of Indigenous people...

It makes reference to "The Little Red, Yellow & Black and Green and Blue and White Book"

Paul foord 21:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That link was very enlightening. I recall the Government used to classify Aborigines based on the proportion of Aboriginal blood line but I see this practice was abandoned in 1992 and replaced with a softer definition along the lines of someone considering themselves to be an Indigenous Australian, and also considered to be by the rest of the Indigenous Australian community. Garglebutt / [[User_talk:Garglebutt|(talk)]] 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Human inhabitants

Aborigines weren't the first inhabitants of Australia. There were Homo erectus soloensis who were actually the first people to reach Australia. They had a high level of culture (for their species), such a high degree that I think they should count as the first inhabitants of Australia. However this is only my opinion so I'm not putting it in the article. But I do think to say the Aboriginals were the first inhabitants is a bit dishonest, as it ignores the previous inhabitants (even if those inhabitants weren't completely human).--John Lynch 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, and contrary to the Homo erectus soloensis article's claims, I very much doubt whether a genuine H.e. soloensis specimen has ever been found in Australia, or even claimed to have been found. I think that that latter article confuses some speculation that soloensis may bear some comparison with finds in AU (possibly Talgai, or Willandra Lakes), but these remain pure speculation and AFAIK no non-sapiens hominid specimens have ever been recovered from AU. The only specimens which have been claimed to be soloensis (aka "Ngandong") are those retrieved from the Solo River, Indonesia. Palaeoanthropologists are not even sure whether soloensis are taxonomically H. erectus at all, the remains may even be early H. sapiens - see for eg here. Their specimens' dating is also highly uncertain- various techniques have returned dates anywhere from 250,000 yrs ago to c. 27-50,000 yrs. And given that the sum total of what is known about them amounts to a dozen or so cranial fragments, a few pieces of pelvic bone, and associated animal remains, whether they had a "higher culture" or not is unknown. A reference to any H. erectus finds or claims in AU would be good to have, but I am not presently aware of any.--cjllw | TALK 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that no hominid species other homo sapiens sapiens has ever been found in Australia. 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by Adam Carr (talk • contribs)

Agreed Adam, such is my view- indeed, were any H. erectus remains to be discovered east of the Wallace Line, that would really shake up current thinking on human origins, and I've not been able to locate any sources to the contrary. The "first human inhabitants" bit would now seem redundant. —preceding unsigned comment by CJLL Wright (talk • contribs)

Not that I know anything about biology/anthropology/etc, but I read somewhere that mitochondrial DNA recovered from Mungo Man revealed that although he was anatomically sapiens, he wasn't descended from the so-called 'common ancestor', and that this might suggest that there were other hominids in Australia. Someone who's actually studied biology should probably go check that out. --bainer (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your recollections are correct, Thebainer, a recent mtDNA result returned from the Mungo Man skeleton has claimed that his mtDNA is not found among living lineages (see for eg [this report (pdf). However, as you note Mungo Man like all other AU archaic Homo finds is of sp. sapiens, and so the result (if it holds up) does not imply the presence of other hominids, but might possibly be claimed in support of the Multi-Regional Model of human descent. Others however (including the researcher himself) dispute that the evidence can be used in this way.--cjllw | TALK 01:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lack of balance

Am I the only one who feels there is a lack of balance with regards to the current day? The article mentions high unemployment, high imprisonment etc but does not mention the well publicised allegations of a fair amount of discrimination by Australian employers and the police against indigenous Australians. Nor does it mention the well published allegations of a high level of discrimination and racism by the Australian public towards indigenous Australians. Someone mentioned it does not mention incidents such as the Redford riots, I agree it should but we need to also make sure we provide a brief summary of the background around the incidents (obviously the detail should be in the individual articles) so that people do not assume these incidents can be solely blamed indigenous Australians. 203.118.187.53 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a fairly senstive topic, perhaps that's why no-one touched it. The correct way to approach it would be with a carefuly chosen set of opinions or statements attributed to public figures, with meticulous referencing. Personal opinions like yours or mine would be asking for trouble, for example I disagree with your claims of a "high level" of discrimination and racism; the vast majority of Australians support reconciliation and efforts to improve socio-economic and health conditions for Aboriginals, which is indicative of a level of basic respect... we'd never reach consensus and all we can do is provide a sampler of (published, i.e. elite, unfortunately) public opinion. --Russell E 01:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is so much that these topics have been deliberately or censoriously avoided, but more that no-one has yet gotten around to expanding upon these points. I agree that these points do warrant thoughtful coverage, though... it's on the list...--cjllw | TALK 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this whole area is quite under-represented here. So I am going to stick my neck out and start inserting some material. I'll try very hard to do so with a neutral point of view, and try to make sure I give a reference for anything which may be questioned, but no doubt it will take many iterations by all of us before we get it right. So - here goes - welcome to the New Year!--Rayd8 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this article getting too long?

I've added a fair amount of stuff to this today, and plan to add more over the next few days. No doubt others will too. It's already 43kB, so perhaps the time has come to break it up a bit? Any views? Rayd8 11:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)