A large country with clans scattered across thousands of kilometres from each other. In the absence of a written language, how did they transmit information solely through oral communication within the confines of their ancestral abode? It's like Chinese whispers, the Soldiers are in the trenches when the sergeant sends the orders down the line. The message was, at 5 o'clock check your rifles we are going to advance. The last soldier heard the message, got dressed and was ready to dance.
@@wadetewano and that makes the 'welcome' business even that much more sad, as the preferred contractors for the 'welcome' do it on other country than their own and not even sharing the profits with the actual peoples of that region.
Your welcomed by the tribe to there land other tribes would also have to be welcomed to country to step foot on the land no it wasn't a country but it's the closest English translation
The term "First Nations" was not originally coined to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. Instead, it originated in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. In Canada, the term "First Nations" was adopted by Indigenous peoples as a way to describe themselves and their communities. It was seen as a more inclusive and respectful term than earlier labels such as "Indian" or "Native." The term gained wider usage in Canada during the 1980s, particularly with the establishment of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in 1982. The AFN is a national organization that represents the interests of First Nations peoples in Canada. In Australia, the term "First Nations" has been adopted more recently, particularly since the 2000s. It is often used interchangeably with terms such as "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" or "Indigenous Australians." Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organizations in Australia have embraced the term "First Nations" as a way to assert their sovereignty and distinct cultural identities. However, others may prefer to use specific nation or language group names, such as "Wiradjuri" or "Yolngu."
The Australian people see through the First nations propaganda. Very little of the actual history of Aboriginal people is taught. The education is skewed towards political machinations, as opposed to an objective telling of the history we know.
2:25 - it’s not merely the harsh climate that limited their population to hundreds of thousands. It’s because they were constantly killing each other in tribal conquest.
@ I never said it was for ‘no reason’. It was for reasons of conquest, domination and inter-tribal dispute. …and I’m fine with that. That’s pretty much how all societies behaved (both tribal and civil) until very recent historical times. Though I would like to point out the hypocrisy in them claiming we ‘stole’ their land when it was basically all they had been doing to each other, nonstop, for 40,000+ years. But it was ok when they did it to each other, right?
Both China and Australia had large landmass and very ancient. Both had many tribes, languages and cultures at the start. In the end China had a nation Australia did not until after white man came.
@@NathanNostawI agree. They could have covered the China story more quickly, leaving more time to clarify in greater depth why the semi-nomadic, Palaeolithic tribes were NOT nations.
If one tribe lived in a valley, men and a few women overcrowded, with no grass, little water, no roos to hunt etc. But the next valley over had a tribe with lovely water, plenty of game, etc but the men of that tribe had the fighting ability of children... did the first tribe "respect their culture and boundaries... or did they simply trit over and take the valley from them?... Of course they did. And thats what happened throughout human history. Europeans did the same when we got here. Our culture gave us the tools to make the whole world the "next valley over". No right or wrong.
We did not take for them they had nothing we wanted instead we gave the problem is they want more we say work they say what is work I don't like work you give or we take
@@Antechynus yeah, but us stupid white buggers chose to write down (in detail) all our exploits. Much easier to pick and choose your history when its oral.
Of course they did not. Hence 360 nation tribes....duh. you can't take British history of brutality and war and say we did it so everyone does that is dense
You will never see this played by a school teacher in a classroom. You will instead see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in classrooms, indigenous artworks, posters celebrating indigenous people and their achievements, and even “sports” invented and played by indigenous people.
Meanwhile they invented basically nothing Besides bush craft and other tribal activities and such for building stuff out of the stuff they had on hand The boomerang I suppose But honestly that’s around about it
@@malcolmball2829 with trump taking office next year, and an election here soon as well, you just never know, the times are changing: common sense is starting to make a comeback.
@@brettralph3403 Ive just finished reading 'The whole truth', and when more people are exposed to what traditional culture and way of life was really like to those people, sympathy will erode for their cause. It was an extremely harsh and brutal life, especially for the woman and girls.
100%. Michael. U.N. Mandates and policy =Affluent Blindness. All Southern Australia's fuel chocked Forests are also primed for the biggest Megafires we've ever seen, any day now. Firestik tech is okay for small managed areas without massive fuel loads, but lethal for larger areas with them. Not seeing the Forests for the trees is totally accurate, in more ways than one. mate.
It's an evolutionary response to the Australian climate. It's too stable and abundant. They never had to learn to preserve food or build large structures. I think give it another 50000ish years and we'd start to speciate. Look at cultures around the world each is based on the environment it evolved within.
They know how to steal and destroy others property. Still hunting and gathering in a civilised world..... ALICE SPRINGS, is now a Sequel of PLANET OF THE APES
@@tristanbackup2536 no. There was no waring tribes that simply did not exist at the time of colonisation. For thousands of years Aboriginals created and enjoyed a peaceful culture and inter tribal relationships
@Lux-x4y You & I know that's bs. We're human, just like everyone else. We didn't had this utopia you speak of where everyone was peaceful, that flies in the face how human nature works, especially on this time scale. Theirs no way we stayed here for around 50,000+ years & their was no disputes between tribes over resources, women & children. Or even if a guy took a dump where he wasn't suppose to, gets tracked down & killed for it by a raiding party. It would had happen. Just look at cultures around the world, especially as they advance their technological & social progress, can't go without a war each century to shake things up. History is very complex, including ours.
@tristanbackup2536 just because a failed culture of war is your history doesn't mean it's aboriginal culture and history. I said thousands of years of peaceful relationships between tribes not 50,000 years. Aboriginal culture is literally peaceful relationships with other tribes they achieved what other cultures had failed.
@ nope, two separate ethnicities bro, they may have interbred on a small scale, but two completely seperate tribes in in different geographic locations Im English bro I know a thing or two about our history
@ Anglo Saxon identity and Celtic identity are completely different ethnic groups, celts were mainly in Ireland wales and Scotland,Anglo Saxons were in England , and were in tribal wars for hundreds of years with the Anglo saxons, who were English (Anglo) and the saxons from Germany there were also the picts and the Cornish in Cornwall, you know absolutely nothing about the ethic make up of the,peoples of Great Britain
@ Wrong. DNA evidence has shown there is very little difference between people in different locations in the British Isles. There are outliers, but they prove the rule.
less than 4% of the population influences most of the legislation in this country. There are similar numbers of Indians to Aboriginals currently, should we make legislation specifically for them too? There is institutionalised racism in this country, time we ended it and treated everyone equally.
4% is the entire Aboriginal population but only half or even less would be full bloods the rest are white Aborigines with very little Aboriginal blood in them who were causing all the problems
Most of the legislation? I didn't realise they influenced gay marriage, the majority of the yearly budget plan, Covid-19 policy ect. That's crazy it's like the illuminati or something
Thank you. Hate arguing with wokes about this. We didn't even had concepts of land ownership. Our lives were brutal yet simple back then, we just hunt & did ooga booga around the campfire.
@Random17Hero An iconic word, use an insult for radical left-wing people who think they are "awake", thinking they have awareness how the world really works when they don't. They view the world through intersectionality & view natural human hierarchies are pure evil when they're not. These people have negative influence the Aboriginal community, especially my family & keeping them in a potential victim hood state & demoralised instead of trying to be hopeful for a a brighter future & build something of themselves. Our ancestors roam this country with nothing but animal skin pelts as undies, using rocks & spears to hunt & they think their life is hard now.
@@Random17Hero People who hate white people and blame children for the sins of the great grandfather, and believe wholeheartedly in the noble savage myth.
It's a shame there wasn't a chance for cross pollination of tech and language, aboriginals might have had a different story when the English showed up. But with the way the chips fell, Australia could have been taken over by ancient Mesopotamians.
Actually this video is rewriting history most of this video isn't factual and is very wrong aboriginals had agriculture and trade with other tribes and many other things that settlers and explorers of that time would later write about when observing aboriginals including Man made water holes used as Wells and star mapping
First nations is a myth; first peoples living in extended families roaming an estate following game, rain and ceremonies does not make nations. First Nations is an imported meme from Canada, a country in the throes of redefining the English language at the cost of truth. Do we as Australians really want to go down that path?
The only way to learn about Aboriginal history is to talk to Aboriginal people but they're not allowed to be seen or talk in the media or have any say because that upset to the narrative of the white Aborigines. I can't remember when was the last time I saw a survival show where they were out with Aboriginal people not allowed anymore
"I'd like to pay tribute to the Bunyippie people, who conquered the previous inhabitants in a brutal genocide a few years before white people showed up, then wandered around to various other places looking for food before realizing it's much easier living next to white people full time."
If we consider the most recent dates thrown about by the professor at the football game, then Australian Aborigines predate modern homo sapiens sapiens, which actually makes a lot of sense considering their technological achievement over that time. No major evolutionary events occurred to Australian Aborigines after they arrived here and dispelled the pygmy inhabitants.
@karlm9584 just don't ask them to do further testing on the Mungo Man to confirm or deny the finding that Mungo Man and woman had different DNA to that of modern Indigenous Australians... The professor on his death bed still claimed that there's no way his samples were contaminated. Yet they deny his research...
@@TheZodiacz it's further back than that but yes, Aborigines, Papuans and other Melanesian peoples can be traced back via DNA to archeological remains found in India dating to around 16,000 years ago. There is however abundant DNA evidence that they have been the principle, if not exclusive inhabitants of Australia for 8,000 to 12,000 years.
At last, someone with the courage and integrity to state the bare facts and the flagrant truth. Thank you to Close the Gap Research. Australia was also Terra Nullius, prior to the first fleet there was not even the concept of national government let alone an authority or government to negotiate with.
Terra Australis was actually what the majority of explorers called it, in their ships logs, Glenn. Terra Nullus is used to slander them. Parts of The Pacific was an Astronomers "dream", then. Astral.- stars
A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation. We saved them from extinction.
@@sidecarmisanthrope5927there was no evidence of cannibalism or infanticide and Aboriginals were not saved from colonisation. British culture was saved by colonisation
Thats quite ignorant. You're saying a people that have dated their existence back 65,000 years was almost at the brink of destruction just before the western forces colonised the place? @sidecarmisanthrope5927
@@sidecarmisanthrope5927 Western culture will make itself extinct just as quickly based on how unsustainable it is. I don’t think it’s accurate to paint indigenous ways of living as necessarily less effective for survival. Cannibalism and infanticide are very much part of humanity in all corners of the world and throughout history to this very day.
In the example of China, it's worth noting that the Silk Road was crucial even in early development. Your two examples of domesticated animals (cattle and chicken) made their way to China from the Middle East and SE Asia respectively.
2:16 they don’t get on today. There was an aboriginal family of about 20 in the house across the road from mine, and every so often there’d be a brawl in the street. I found out it was because members of another tribe came by. Norforce the soldiers tasked with patrolling the top end are most aborigines and sometimes people go missing. Patrols will come back minus a member of a rival tribe, and just look at Alice Springs.
This is dumbest argument... They didn't need bows when their spear skills were so good they can hit a fish between the eyes with a spear from 80 feet away!
@@internethardcase they did lol while moving around as nomads they were spreading seeds strategically... They understood cultivation they just didn't plant them in perfect rows!
A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation.
Australia has very few native plants that can be cultivated and farmed (such as the Munrong Yam), and no native beasts of burden to help with heavy work such as plowing (so no horses, ox, etc). What there is provides such little nutrition compared to other continents, and the energy cost required to get it is far higher than just getting a chicken from a merchant like what other continents have done for thousands of years We think of Australia as a farming country abundant in wheat, sheep, cows and so on but none of those are native to Australia, which is a large reason why development didn't happen; if you want to build a complex society then agriculture is a non-negotiable. Availability of proteins, carbohydrates and fats is what builds a society and Australia is very much lacking in that department.
This should be required viewing for everybody sprouting the rote rambling about First Nations always was and whatever blah they mumble at every gathering of more than three people.
The comparison between Aboriginal societies and civilizations like China ignores one of the most critical factors in the development of human societies: geography and the availability of domesticable plants and animals. Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel laid out this argument clearly-civilizations with access to nutrient-rich crops like rice, wheat, or corn, and animals like pigs, cows, and horses, had significant advantages in food production, transportation, and labor, which allowed for population growth and complex societal structures. Aboriginal people didn’t lack intelligence, resourcefulness, or creativity-they lacked the same environmental conditions that allowed other societies to develop surplus-based economies. Instead, they perfected methods suited to their environment, such as fire-stick farming, which sustained ecosystems and ensured survival in the often harsh Australian landscape for tens of thousands of years. That’s a level of sustainability and adaptability most modern societies can’t claim. The reality TV analogy is spot-on. Many Westerners, even with access to modern tools and knowledge, struggle to survive in the wilderness. That doesn’t make them less capable-it shows how much their survival depends on environmental conditions and resources. Aboriginal people thrived in one of the world’s most challenging environments for tens of thousands of years without destroying it-a feat that deserves respect, not ridicule. The argument that societal development is a direct result of race is not just ignorant; it’s been debunked countless times. Geography and environment are the real driving forces behind the pace of technological advancement, not inherent qualities of a people. Aboriginal people demonstrated incredible ingenuity and resilience in mastering their environment, and that is a legacy worth celebrating.
Sounds great, but it doesn’t really explain their current situation to well though. They have been part of a first world society for a long time now, with benefits that others don’t get.
@@useruseruseruseruser790 tens of thousands of years of culture were derailed basically overnight, the indigenous Australians were simply not built for the change, similarly to but more extreme than how rapid technological advancement in the west is stressing social structures and personal lives. We can't expect them to be entirely consumed by a colonial power, experience horrific genocide, and then just suddenly and seamlessly change their entire societal structure and culture to fit Anglo-Saxon lifestyle. Oh, and that's before talking about alcohol.
The megafauna and bushfires might argue with you there, on not destroying it. And surviving in an environment for 10,000 years and never advancing beyond neolithic tech or building any sort of city is pretty weak. Yeah, there's no corn or wheat. But corn, wheat and rice were genetically selected over time to be the powerhouse crops that allowed for civilisations to rise. I'm pretty sure you could selectively breed something in our diverse line up of flora that could sustain a population. Or build boats and figure out how to fish, and use salt to cure it. A hollowed out log isn't a boat, many, many other civilisations on earth built their cities on the coast lines for exactly this reason.
According to National Geographic definition of nation for kids “A nation is a group of people who share common characteristics, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, and/or geography, and are united by a political system that governs the whole society: “ We have seen clearly that the indigenous people had their own lore and some groups overlapped somewhat in this. This presentation undermines any credibility your movement has… not picking about a word and then going on a long winded rant that is irrelevant to the question of whether the people who lived here prior to British Invasion were the rightful owners at the time. The whole question is not about whether they were one group or many , it’s about being honest that human groups will invade others territory if it suits them , just as China experienced repeatedly and Australian indigenous groups experienced repeatedly throughout their history. Were the Mongols apologists to the Chinese? Sadly the reality is when might overwhelms whether right or not, the injured can fight to the death or accept their fate and get on with living. That’s what the convicts did. There are always gains and losses with change. Dwelling on the past is irrelevant to getting on with life and victim mentality never advances anyone in the end
"a group of people who share common characteristics, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, and/or geography, and are united by a political system that governs the whole society" - Sounds exactly like my family to every last item. That's clearly a "progressive" hijacking of language, undermining any credibility you have.
You say; "This presentation undermines any credibility your movement has… not picking about a word and then going on a long winded rant that is irrelevant to the question of whether the people who lived here prior to British Invasion were the rightful owners at the time.'' ~ Perhaps you haven't had your morning coffee yet, or whatever, but you clearly do not understand what the term, 'irrelevant to the question' means, not that there was actually a question asked. The video explained why, at colonisation, our stone age nomadic Aboriginals were not, and never had been, NATIONS. Nothing else. Of course it was wrong to show Aborigines wearing something around their waist, hiding their bottoms and private parts, as unless the weather was really cold, they were mostly all naked, male and female alike. As for what National Geographic says, '“A nation is a group of people who share common characteristics, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, and/or geography, and are united by a political system that governs the whole society: “' Well there was no shared language, around 250 different ones. No shared history as they came from different countries and at colonisation each had their own Dreamtime version of their history. Ethnicity? Melanesians are NOT Aborigines. Culture? While many Aboriginal groups/tribes had similar cultures they are all different to each other either in a small or large way, and again, Melanesians were not nomadic hunter gatherers. Geography? Australia is a land of sweeping plains, of ragged mountain ranges, of snow in winter along with extremely hot desert areas and wet tropical coastal fringes, most having never seen or heard of the sea, hardly a shared experience for our 250 language groups. And, these 250 language groups did not share a political system, unless you wish to claim that no political system is a shared one. Go and have that coffee or rum or whatever, then come and have another shot at it. Cheers.
@@pittycrossactually there was common language for example the Ngarabal (NSW) people shared about 60% of their language with surrounding nations such as Gamilaroi and Yugambul. This was used for trade and even alliances when there was wars with each other. There is literal artefacts in possession of certain tribal groups that came from several tribes over showing evidence of trading happening. Mind you the land mass of Gamilaroi nation which spoke one language with multiple variations is larger than that of the country of Wales which no one disputes is a nation. There is beyond ample evidence to suggest there was structure and small government within each group which linked to a larger language identity. As for the concept of a nation, yes as soon as Aboriginal ppl started learning English we referred to ourselves as “nations” and this is my “country”.
I relocated to Australia 2 years ago? What am I now? Last Nations? Coach Class? The term First Nations was made up by extreme activist. There are terms like “indigenous”, or “aboriginal”. The wheel does not have to be reinvented, especially not with terms, which are devaluing the other way round.
@sunnyssundries all part of the agenda mate. You'll be happy owning nothing after you're convinced it wasn't actually available for ownership to begin with. Never mind that indigenous tribal culture had no concept of ownership, nor do they satisfy Locke or Hume's criteria for ownership.
We need more videos like this. Could have cut the development of china part to about half that time though, or thrown in some European examples for variety. But overall a good video, and needs to be said.
Outstanding - very well presented, should be part of the school curriculum, particularly in those States where the curriculum must have an Aboriginal bias.
I can tell you there are many incorrect claims made in this video that are very false. read my comment for details. Note: i am not aboriginal, but it is evident that "close the gap" have a bias to themselves as their information directly conflicts even with their references. i have read Guns, germs, and steel and they use a quote from it despite the video disagreeing with Diamonds perceptions put forward in his book. This video has HUGE bias.
Excellent video. The wholesale importation of American and Canadian terms to describe very different indigenous populations is ridiculous. The romantic view of Aboriginal people living in harmony and in peace is slowly and thankfully being eroded. 65,000 years (some claim, ridiculously) and the entire population of the continent never passed the population of the city of ancient Rome. Life for them was dirty, brutal and painful. No writing, innovation or development, despite their warfare and massive mortality rates.
@ No, I did. I was taking the piss out of today’s progressive mantra. I don’t know if you have noticed, obviously not, but due to identity politics our society is divided like it has never been before.
@greg-m3m I agree. Many variables at play.. But the socio-economic gap existed before colonisation, right? Therefore, whoever claims that Colonisation CAUSED the gap, is being misleading right? 🤔
@@southern-samurai Our biggest mining operations are outside of remote communities on their land, yet they remain unemployed. What are our governments doing to skill up those communities so they can work in the mining sector?
this is a very succinct appraisal and explanation of the history of Australia pre colonization by the british and should be taught in every class room and university. to forever quash this current nonsense that the abos were somehow a noble and intelligent race. the truth is they would be now extinct if they had been able to carry on the way they were when the British pulled them yelling and screeching from the morass they were in. some are still screeching (lydia thorpe and others)
What a load of shit. Our race had existed for many thousands of years in harmony with our environment and would have continued to do so. The invasion by Europeans was the worst catastrophy to befall our people. We lived a simple lifestyle and didn't need All the crap that was considered civ
there was no concept of "nation" or "national identity" until the hundred years war, which ended in 1453. prior to that, loyalty was to kings (kingdoms) and emperors (empires), the concept of a national identity emerged in france as a response to repeated invasions by english kings who did have a rightful claim to the french throne but were not actually french. in essence "france is not its king, france is its people", this line of thinking deligitimised the claims of foreign rulers to france's throne and dramatically improved france's ability to defend itself against foreign invasions. as an idea it was also incredibly influential in the following centuries, other nations began to follow suit, both as a natural spread and as something actively promoted by rulers who figured out that loyalty to "nation" could be far stronger than loyalty to the king, as bad decisions by the king could damage loyalty but the "nation" is a concept that is innocent of all the king's mistakes, which is exactly why france adopted it, france had many incompetent kings during the hundred years war and this divided the loyalty of the french people between the different claimants to the throne, and the idea of nationhood changed that so thoroughly that france went from "fighting over who gets to be king" to thinking "hey maybe we don't need a king". in essence, the concept of a "nation" and "national identity" is something you get AFTER the english invade you, the reason we can say that the english have invaded 90% of the world's nations is because being invaded by the english is what triggers the transformation from "kingdom/empire" to "nation".
arguably nationhood was only really solidified with napoleon. Even the British didn't develop proper nationhood outside the elites until they fought Napoleon. British Nationhood was brought on by the dominance of Napoleon and the idea that the British were the sole strength left, thus generating a unity in the concept of Britain. Consider that the USA was developed from the new concept of nationalism. It was the ideas in France which in a sense enlightened the American colonies to develop their own idea of nationhood. Something the Canadian provinces were not interested in.
@@TheZodiacz the idea of a "nation" has no set origin, its a concept that developed over time, comparing it to smartphones, post HYW france is the first iphone, the swiss confederacy is the first mobile phone, athens is the first wallphone, iceland is the first radio, and tribes are the first "smoke signals" the modern idea of a nation state didn't exist until napoleon, switzerland didn't have its first president until the 1850s, the whole point of this is if you saw someone using smoke signals and they said "its a samsung galaxy note 7 i swear" would you bring up the fact that they release toxic fumes when they burn and would make for a poor signal fire (and also potentially lethal)?
Real, 1400s Rome had building with marble while these aboriginals in the 1400s couldn’t even tie a stone to a stick to make it sharper yet they claim to be around for 60,000 years SMH
Not sure how they can claim..."Oldest Continuous Living Culture in the World" status all the time. How long ago was "Lucy" discovered in Africa again ? 🤔🤨
The term First Nations has been stolen from North America, where in order to legally bind treaties between Europeans and tribes the tribes had to be referred to as Nations on the legal paperwork.
It's also very patronizing to Aboriginal Australians as it also implies no difference between Canada and Australia, a sense of "they" are "all the same".
5:55 Strong point. They had to make do with what they had. And all the world's activity was happening mostly in particular areas which made progress easier, and even with the wars came development as each new empire built on top of the existing land and ideas and innovated
Can't be called first nations when they were never united as a nation just a bunch of different tribes that hated each other. Oh wait nothing's changed hahaha
"The History of Central Banking and the enslavement of mankind" by Stephen Mitford Goodson is a compact easy to read little book that has very surprising referenced historical information even for those who believe they've discovered they didn't teach the truth in school.
Did Australien tribes not clash between themselves every now and then? Pretty sure some of those were hostile towards each other, fighting over food sources.
@@sol-leks6122 how do you know anything about aboriginal history? we only have written accounts from settlers and an understanding of human nature to go off. do you think that aboriginals were special in that they were the only group in 100 000 000 000+ people that have lived to not be tribal and violent?
Sometimes the other tribes were the food source. A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation. 60,000 years and the best they could come up with was 3 sticks. A straight stick, a bent stick and a hollow stick. Yeah, great achievements.
Traditional or Ancestral lands are more appropriate terms to use than nations. Certainly each Aboriginal tribe had knowledge of where its territory ended by natural borders or tradition. You might view the British colonizers as "just" another "tribe" from outside the traditional territory (to each Aboriginal tribal community), descended from the British isles or Europe, bringing about unprecedented changes to the Australian human way of life. I have no knowledge if there is evidence of waves of "first" Australians coming in at different intervals, with the later arrivals clashing with the earlier arrivals, most likely this scenario happened.
Aborigines understood that they did not own land, they were part of the land, they belonged to the land. The land owned them. They occupied the land, they did not own it. The TIs, on the other hand, did own particular, defined, parcels of land according to the rules of TI society at the time. Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians.
Bullshit. When have we ever had power and rights over other Australians???? It’s been a civil rights struggle ever since your arrival. Check your surroundings mate, who’s in control coz it sure isn’t us (Aboriginals)
To claim that the aboriginal peoples didn't advance because they had a low population is disingenuous, as is linking this to isolation. They had a low population because they didn't advance, and too, this kept them relatively but not totally isolated.
A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation. 60,000 years and the best they could come up with was 3 sticks. A straight stick, a bent stick and a hollow stick. Yeah, great achievements.
No evidence of cannibalism or infanticide and Aboriginals would have not gone extinct. Come up with a advanced culture and way of life compared to the British hence convicts
@@Lux-x4y There are literally hundreds of official colonial accounts of cannibalism and infanticide. Wilful ignorance won't change that. "British HENCE convicts"? WTF?
@sidecarmisanthrope5927 accounts are is not evidence :) I can make an account that the sky is purple lmao you believe what you read like a commoner nobody
@@Lux-x4y You are sadly misinformed. There are plenty of records showing Cannibalism. Just do a search on Australian Aboriginal Cannibalism. You will see many eyewitness accounts. The NSW police have records of infanticide. Those are the facts.
Dehumanising fictionalized literature is the foundation of colonisation...the truth is your fragility and support of genocide of the world's oldest continuous advanced culture on earth
Great video. The term "First Nations" was appropriated from Canada by activists in a cynical attempt to promote the myth of aboriginal sovereignty, and further their treaty agenda, leading on to reparations. Although some activists still haven't got the memo, last years decisive Referendum result indicated that the majority of Australians are not prepared swallow this First Nations tripe and everything that goes with it. One flag, one country, one people.
First Nations is a business and a profitable one so no real truth telling will make it go away. A recent example is the proposal to give the Olympic Games in Brisbane an aboriginal flavour and to use the games to promote aboriginal cultural tourism.
We seem to have dropped the "worlds oldest civilisation" title that used to be in vogue for quite a while. Australia lacked a farmable crop e.g. wheat or animals e.g. cattle, llamas, sheep. I think this impeded movement beyond hunter gatherer.
They were stone aged nomads , that hadn’t invented the wheel, they didn’t have a Bronze Age and medieval age , no renaissance, no Victorian age , no written language.. colonialism was the best thing to happen to the aborigines..almost everything we know as aboriginal art , aboriginal flag and stories all began in the 1970s and get more magnificent with every passing year a lot of fabricating people and places.. just look at their community’s today.. this video is great ..I have been thinking this ever since I first heard ..first nations
Go and read a bit of history mate. Massacres galore, rapes, theft of children, If I asked you to choose between a simple nomadic lifestyle where you would have to contend with hostile nature and reasonably often attacks from fellow tribes ( mind you casualties were only ever men and generally not more than 30 in a battle) which would you choose? HLooking at our current state where 50 years of our own resistance and reconciliation from the rest of the country has ended this oppression and put us on the same scale as the rest of the country is not an accurate assessment of the effects of colonisation but rather of modern democracy post world war 2. Try with google searching some massacres where women and babies were trampled with horses and then burned to death.
@gudapictures who did that ? Arrest them .. I tried to read aboriginal history but they didn't write anything down because they were and mostly still are illiterate.. don't make excuses aboriginal and Torres Strait people get alot more opportunities than anyone else who is Australian. Do you want to tell us about child rape and cannibalism amongst aboriginal communities back in the day?
@@gudapictures Aboriginals did this as well. When tribes fought each other, they would slay all but the women, so they would be breading stock. Those slain where food for the next couple of weeks. And if food was scarce they would eat a kid, or find another tribe to slaughter and take what they had.
I'm Aboriginal and I despise the ridiculous term first nations, it's an insult to us as we had no nation. And the majority of other Aboriginal people I know think the same, much the same as we're now supposedly offended by the words Aboriginal or Indigenous but the do-gooders didn't think to.consult us first..
I am so sick of people play acting that Australian Aboriginals had a deep an meaningful culture. They did not. Humans can not get any simpler than Aus Aboriginals. Literally stone age man when Cook landed. They were very good at "just" surviving in a very challenging environment.
@@DrWoofOfficial They were a different kettle of fish. Māori people had village societies with agricultural skills. Their culture is deep and intricate.
@@Lux-x4ydidn’t they drive multiple species into extinction and also change the environmental makeup of certain areas of the country through burning down sections of forest.
@hillbilly3772 no they didn't drive species into extinction their practices were sustainable and environmentally they improved the land. Unlike the mass extinction of over 500 native species and total environment decimation since colonisers that's obvious.
First nation's is a Canadian term. It has become used in Australia as an attempt to push for a treaty (financial compensation). There were never nations prior to settlement
They're not first nations ppl. The Papuans were here first. When aborigines came here they wiped out the Papuans. Aborigines are not indigenous to Australia. They're indigenous to southern India and Sri Lanka.
@sol-leks6122 The information comes from a book called Cape York Savage Frontier by Rodney Liddell. It was banned in the 90s by the Australian government because it didn't fit their narrative concerning aboriginal history.
Interesting but a bit laborious, I think. Is the story of the Chinese Dynasties necessary? Perhaps a simpler differentiation between hunter-gather groups and Nations would be better. The definition of the word 'Nation' needs to be defined. One definition of a Nation is that a Nation is a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. The point needs to be made clearly that Aborigines never met this definition and, therefore, Aboriginal Nations never existed. The statement that Aboriginal groups had no trade is wrong. Some trade did occur regularly between disparate Aboriginal groups. Importantly, Aboriginal societies were very different from those of the Maori in NZ, and the Torres Straits Islanders, for example. These other groups had well organised societies with land ownership and structured societies. The Aborigines had neither. There were never any Aboriginal Nations.
I don't understand why people think that because the Maori and TI were gardeners/farmers of sorts, then it is OK to accept that they owned their own land, but, because Aboriginals were nomadic and moved around their land in yearly cycles, they did not own their land. Every native person, clan or tribe knew exactly where their land started and ended and that if they were found on some other group's land they would likely be killed. I just do not get it.
@@pittycross Aborigines understood that they did not own land, they were part of the land, they belonged to the land. The land owned them. They occupied the land, they did not own it. The TIs, on the other hand, did own particular, defined, parcels of land according to the rules of TI society at the time. Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians. “In Mabo, it was conceded by all parties and accepted by the Court that the Crown had acquired sovereignty of Australia by occupancy under international law; the international law doctrine of terra nullius was, therefore, not an issue in Mabo. Indeed, ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned in any of the plaintiffs’ submissions, and was not referred to at all during the four days of substantive argument before the High Court of Australia. Furthermore, all members of the High Court concluded that, irrespective of the original presence of the Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common law, Australia was a territory acquired by settlement.”
You say, "“In Mabo, it was conceded by all parties and accepted by the Court that the Crown had acquired sovereignty of Australia by occupancy under international law." Of course it was accepted by all parties as it was British law. But that has nothing to do with the fact that at colonisation all Aboriginals OWNED the land they, their family/clan/tribe lived on. I don't understand why so many people appear scared/reluctant to admit this. I accept that the crown at colonisation owned all the land, but that came about because our stone age Aboriginals did not/could not, put up a strong defence of it like modern people do. I have recently finished reading Baldwin Spencer's anthropological book, 'Wanderings in Wild Australia', published in 1928 but written in the period up to 1911 while studying native tribes in the NT. On page 911 (by coincidence) and page 912 he describes how, after watching a burial ceremony, the two distinct groups (Malualla and Tjikaaluulla) of Bathurst Island natives taking part in it immediately went to their own camps and had no intercourse with one another. He states, "we found that on Melville and Bathurst islands there were a number of local groups each of which was supposed to be the OWNER of a certain definite part of the country and had a definite name." Describing where on a map the local groups on the two islands lived, Spencer writes; "There is first the name of the locality and second that of the group inhabiting and OWNING it, this name being always formed by adding the suffix -ulla to that of the locality." I expect that this man, Sir Baldwin Spencer, is/was accepted by his peers, dead and alive, as one of the greatest and most diligent anthropologists who ever lived. I have a number of his works, beginning in the late 1800's. These comments are towards the end of this book and so more readily came to mind. I reiterate, just because the government at colonisation claimed ownership of the land, sovereignty, that does not for a second mean that it was not OWNED by native groups beforehand.
@@pittycross, as I have said before: Aborigines understood that they did not own land, they were part of the land, they belonged to the land. The land owned them. They occupied the land, they did not own it. The TIs, on the other hand, did own particular, defined, parcels of land according to the rules of TI society at the time. Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians.
@@lindsayhackett7678 Again Lindsay you post the words of Yothu Yindi band member, Mandawuy Yunupingu, who on TH-cam in the 1st 10 seconds or so of 'Yothu Yindi- "Tribal Voice"' says: "We don't believe we don't own mother earth, the earth owns us." It was just some nonsense to satisfy the woke, those they have sucked in to try and elevate their connection to 'mother earth. But as I stated on another site, they most certainly believed they owned the land when they went to court to try and prevent the Commonwealth and Nabalco from coming onto their tribal land in the Yirrkala Land case, 1970. But, your constant inclusion of Mandaways little speech, (which Baldwin Spencer has poo-pooed) makes me wonder which other Dreamtime stories do you accept as fact? Why would these people fight to the death all across Australia pre colonisation (and after) with strangers who came uninvited onto their land if they did not believe they owned it? You said; "Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians." Yes, I have said exactly the same thing, however my argument is with the mostly mainstream mixed race ones who pretend to have continued traditional culture without interruption since colonisation. Full-blood people who have remained on their traditional tribal lands since colonisation, like most in Arnhem Land, obviously still do own their land, albeit, I fully accept that sovereignty supersedes their claims. But, if the crown wants to take their land, for any reason, then they should be paid compensation for it. Again though, they do not need the large areas of land they once did when they were nomadic hunter gatherers, so smaller areas which have special meaning to them should be granted to them and the rest dealt with, but open to purchase by any Australians.
China invented everything in parallel and independently. Writing, the printing press, currency (including fiat currency and paper money) and bureaucracy, as well as textiles, leatherworking, metallurgy and even mass production and counterfeit luxury items such as fake Ming vases (produced during the Qing dynasty), were all being produced in China, hundreds of years before regular commerce with the West really kicked into high gear, during and after the Opium Wars.
Mathematics: Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians developed advanced mathematical systems, and the concept of zero came from India. Medicine: Indigenous people across the Americas used complex herbal remedies long before European settlers arrived, and Chinese medicine has a history spanning thousands of years. Writing: Systems like cuneiform in Mesopotamia and hieroglyphics in Egypt predate European alphabets. Navigation: Arabs developed the astrolabe, and Polynesians mastered open-ocean navigation without Western tools. Even in the modern era, countless innovations have come from people of color. For instance, the traffic light (Garrett Morgan), blood banks (Charles Drew), and fiber-optic cables (Narinder Singh Kapany) were all pioneered by non-white individuals.
You must be colourblind, if you think the inventers of the things you mentioned are White? I hope You are Not using things that were created by Non White people!!
HEAR! 👂 HERE! 🇦🇺 I have been espousing this for some considerable time now. Pleasing to see someone else espousing what is little more than old fashioned common sense. (And truth)
Aboriginal people did have some trade. Mostly though it was stones, totems and women. Trading women was part of corroboree. Women were often stolen, and the successful men had 2 or more wives
@greg-m3m Sort of. There were never any British military here. I have Irish heritage - they sent their armies to attack us loads of times. Hundreds of boats full of soldiers. 100% though welfare and nanny state policies never help anyone. The creation of these remote communities doesn’t give them a chance at success.
@ Thanks for your response. I need to say that life was pretty tough for everyone in Australia back then. Different people seem to have responded in different ways. There are so many cultures/peoples across the world who have had tragic histories - unfortunately the world doesn’t care. You need to pick yourselves up and move on as best you can. Embracing victimhood just doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy.
This video’s take is outdated and dripping with bias. Claiming there were "no First Nations" in Australia dismisses the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their right to define themselves. "Nation" isn’t exclusive to Western systems. Aboriginal groups had complex governance, law, trade networks, and land stewardship, none of which fit into the narrow colonial framework this video idolises. Tindale’s map is flawed, freezing living cultures in time, but it doesn’t erase their significance or dynamism. The China comparison? Laughable. Aboriginal societies thrived for over 65,000 years, adapting to harsh conditions with sustainable practices like fire-stick farming and knowledge systems grounded in land and sky. They didn’t need massive populations or agriculture in a European sense, they had what worked for them. Every culture has conflicts; cherry-picking Aboriginal ones to portray chaos while ignoring diplomacy, law, and trade is as dishonest as it gets. What’s worse is the bigoted commentary this video fuels. It’s a breeding ground for echo chambers that misinform and radicalise. Simplistic, dismissive narratives like this feed ignorance and division. Australia’s First Nations deserve respect, not lazy arguments rooted in outdated anthropology. Echo chambers are dangerous, they harden prejudice and stifle understanding. Break the cycle. Think critically.
There's a huge gap between the Stone Age and Modernity. Aborigines got modernity for a fraction of the price Europeans had to pay. Not to mention the fact that the Japanese would have enslaved the Aborigines if all they had to defend their "nations" were spears and boomerangs.
And this is why 'Welcome to Country' makes no sense. There was no unified Australia with shared traditions then.
Again, stolen from Canada. Prior to the 1970s it didn't even exist here.
You know “country” is just the particular area of that one group of people? It can be sized to a state or even as small as a suburb.
A large country with clans scattered across thousands of kilometres from each other. In the absence of a written language, how did they transmit information solely through oral communication within the confines of their ancestral abode?
It's like Chinese whispers, the Soldiers are in the trenches when the sergeant sends the orders down the line. The message was, at 5 o'clock check your rifles we are going to advance. The last soldier heard the message, got dressed and was ready to dance.
@@wadetewano and that makes the 'welcome' business even that much more sad, as the preferred contractors for the 'welcome' do it on other country than their own and not even sharing the profits with the actual peoples of that region.
Your welcomed by the tribe to there land other tribes would also have to be welcomed to country to step foot on the land no it wasn't a country but it's the closest English translation
There’s no way we can move forward as long as lies continue. Cowtowing and inappropriate platitudes especially have to stop.
So do you now understand why lies continue?
Now have you worked out why the lies continue?
Cowtowing? What do you tow the cow with?
Platitudes lol how long did you have to spend looking that one up to make yourself sound more intelligent than everyone else
Its apparent that pushing agendas such as First Nations, is crumbling,
How can they claim first nations,they were not a nation, they were a few tribes scattered around the place.
They didn't, that's a new term to create apartheid and victims.
"First nations" sounds a lot better than "first tribes" and it's all about perception and semantics. Reality takes a back-seat these days.
The term "First Nations" was not originally coined to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. Instead, it originated in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s.
In Canada, the term "First Nations" was adopted by Indigenous peoples as a way to describe themselves and their communities. It was seen as a more inclusive and respectful term than earlier labels such as "Indian" or "Native."
The term gained wider usage in Canada during the 1980s, particularly with the establishment of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in 1982. The AFN is a national organization that represents the interests of First Nations peoples in Canada.
In Australia, the term "First Nations" has been adopted more recently, particularly since the 2000s. It is often used interchangeably with terms such as "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" or "Indigenous Australians."
Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organizations in Australia have embraced the term "First Nations" as a way to assert their sovereignty and distinct cultural identities. However, others may prefer to use specific nation or language group names, such as "Wiradjuri" or "Yolngu."
@@sol-leks6122 I was with upto the last paragraph.
They have embraced the term to secure handouts from our woke political and public service heads.
Heaps of tribes, to be fair, but yes the notion that tribes and nation states are interchangable is absurd.
The Australian people see through the First nations propaganda. Very little of the actual history of Aboriginal people is taught. The education is skewed towards political machinations, as opposed to an objective telling of the history we know.
Propaganda is the fictionalized dehumanising literature published. Aboriginals had a more advanced culture than the British hence convicts
Lol. And in history Europe was the same.
@@Lux-x4y What?
@@NigelHatcherN Aboriginals had a more advanced culture than the British. Can you read and comprehended a simple statement?
@@Lux-x4y Yes and I can tell BS as well. Another skill you lack.
2:25 - it’s not merely the harsh climate that limited their population to hundreds of thousands. It’s because they were constantly killing each other in tribal conquest.
They were extremely violent people but they didn't just kill each other for no reason
@ I never said it was for ‘no reason’. It was for reasons of conquest, domination and inter-tribal dispute.
…and I’m fine with that. That’s pretty much how all societies behaved (both tribal and civil) until very recent historical times. Though I would like to point out the hypocrisy in them claiming we ‘stole’ their land when it was basically all they had been doing to each other, nonstop, for 40,000+ years. But it was ok when they did it to each other, right?
To this day, most trouble in aboriginal communities is among themselves, rather than with 'whitey'.
I think the chinese example was a bit too in depth and kind of derailed the point of the video a bit.
I agree. They lost me around Genghis Khan, and then I got focus back when it went back to the aboriginals again
Both China and Australia had large landmass and very ancient. Both had many tribes, languages and cultures at the start. In the end China had a nation Australia did not until after white man came.
@nastasha47 not arguing the relevance of the comparison, just the level of detail of their social evolution in a short video.
yes
@@NathanNostawI agree. They could have covered the China story more quickly, leaving more time to clarify in greater depth why the semi-nomadic, Palaeolithic tribes were NOT nations.
If one tribe lived in a valley, men and a few women overcrowded, with no grass, little water, no roos to hunt etc.
But the next valley over had a tribe with lovely water, plenty of game, etc but the men of that tribe had the fighting ability of children... did the first tribe "respect their culture and boundaries... or did they simply trit over and take the valley from them?...
Of course they did.
And thats what happened throughout human history. Europeans did the same when we got here. Our culture gave us the tools to make the whole world the "next valley over".
No right or wrong.
We did not take for them they had nothing we wanted instead we gave the problem is they want more we say work they say what is work I don't like work you give or we take
@@Antechynus yeah, but us stupid white buggers chose to write down (in detail) all our exploits. Much easier to pick and choose your history when its oral.
Of course they did not. Hence 360 nation tribes....duh. you can't take British history of brutality and war and say we did it so everyone does that is dense
Aboriginals had a sustainable culture so war was not evident. your lack of knowledge is outstanding
@@Lux-x4y they had a culture of hard r
You will never see this played by a school teacher in a classroom.
You will instead see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in classrooms, indigenous artworks, posters celebrating indigenous people and their achievements, and even “sports” invented and played by indigenous people.
Meanwhile they invented basically nothing
Besides bush craft and other tribal activities and such for building stuff out of the stuff they had on hand
The boomerang I suppose
But honestly that’s around about it
Dot paintings are not indigenous. It was a European man who taught them dot painting in the 70's
Because Australians can't enjoy or be proud of Australian cultures and Australian achievements? That's un-Australian.
@@Lwydius Doesn't matter. Cultures change over time. Aboriginal dot painting is distinctly Aboriginal, its just that they now paint on canvas.
@@Civman-yr8lbthat is probably the most asinine thing I've read today. Bravo
About time someone produced a truthful telling of this subject, it should be mandatory in schools.
Nice idea but when the truth offends some one, the truth gets kicked to the Kirb..lol
@@malcolmball2829 with trump taking office next year, and an election here soon as well, you just never know, the times are changing: common sense is starting to make a comeback.
Spot on👍🏻
@@daniellebcooper7160 The Pendulum swings, ruthlessly too. 100%
@@brettralph3403 Ive just finished reading 'The whole truth', and when more people are exposed to what traditional culture and way of life was really like to those people, sympathy will erode for their cause. It was an extremely harsh and brutal life, especially for the woman and girls.
Challenge for the Intrepid: get a wokie (or Lidia Thorpe) to sit in silence while watching this whole video.
Just a money grabbing half breed.
Woke votes I guess?
Haha, brilliant 😂
Lidia couldnt even be quiet for 2 minutes listening to this before pointing out everything she thinks is wrong.
@@B1-997 2 minutes is incredibly generous
Beautifully articulating the bleeding obvious. And yet our politicians cannot see the forest for the trees. How is this possible?
Our politicians are well aware of this, it just doesn't suit their agenda to acknowledge it. They are not stupid, merely corrupt.
Money
100%. Michael. U.N. Mandates and policy =Affluent Blindness. All Southern Australia's fuel chocked Forests are also primed for the biggest Megafires we've ever seen, any day now. Firestik tech is okay for small managed areas without massive fuel loads, but lethal for larger areas with them. Not seeing the Forests for the trees is totally accurate, in more ways than one. mate.
Because there's something political to gain from it. Remember when they tried the the Voice referendum? Yeah...
@@RockSolitude
Yeah, and they're shoving it through into the states.
We voted NO. But they're still doing it.
Oldest living people group but they are the most unadvanced society in the history of mankind.
Then you go to Alice Springs and it all makes sense
It's an evolutionary response to the Australian climate. It's too stable and abundant. They never had to learn to preserve food or build large structures. I think give it another 50000ish years and we'd start to speciate. Look at cultures around the world each is based on the environment it evolved within.
They know how to steal and destroy others property.
Still hunting and gathering in a civilised world.....
ALICE SPRINGS, is now a Sequel of PLANET OF THE APES
Or Darwin 😂😂
Aboriginals had the most advanced society. British is a failed culture hence convicts bro
As opposed to who? You who base your entire worth on the wheel and written language which was invented by black ppl?
I've been saying this for years. Australia was full of 300 waring tribes. Someone needs to show this to that divisive, ignorant racist Lidia Thorpe.
There was no waring tribes tho
@@Lux-x4y
Some tribes were, some weren't.
@@tristanbackup2536 no. There was no waring tribes that simply did not exist at the time of colonisation. For thousands of years Aboriginals created and enjoyed a peaceful culture and inter tribal relationships
@Lux-x4y
You & I know that's bs. We're human, just like everyone else. We didn't had this utopia you speak of where everyone was peaceful, that flies in the face how human nature works, especially on this time scale. Theirs no way we stayed here for around 50,000+ years & their was no disputes between tribes over resources, women & children. Or even if a guy took a dump where he wasn't suppose to, gets tracked down & killed for it by a raiding party. It would had happen. Just look at cultures around the world, especially as they advance their technological & social progress, can't go without a war each century to shake things up. History is very complex, including ours.
@tristanbackup2536 just because a failed culture of war is your history doesn't mean it's aboriginal culture and history. I said thousands of years of peaceful relationships between tribes not 50,000 years. Aboriginal culture is literally peaceful relationships with other tribes they achieved what other cultures had failed.
Australia as a nation was founded by the AngloCeltic people in 1901.
Anglo saxons and celts actually
But nice try
@ wrong. The British people have an AngloCeltic identity developed over 1,500+ years.
@ nope, two separate ethnicities bro, they may have interbred on a small scale, but two completely seperate tribes in in different geographic locations
Im English bro I know a thing or two about our history
@ Anglo Saxon identity and Celtic identity are completely different ethnic groups, celts were mainly in Ireland wales and Scotland,Anglo Saxons were in England , and were in tribal wars for hundreds of years with the Anglo saxons, who were English (Anglo) and the saxons from Germany there were also the picts and the Cornish in Cornwall, you know absolutely nothing about the ethic make up of the,peoples of Great Britain
@
Wrong. DNA evidence has shown there is very little difference between people in different locations in the British Isles. There are outliers, but they prove the rule.
less than 4% of the population influences most of the legislation in this country. There are similar numbers of Indians to Aboriginals currently, should we make legislation specifically for them too? There is institutionalised racism in this country, time we ended it and treated everyone equally.
4% is the entire Aboriginal population but only half or even less would be full bloods the rest are white Aborigines with very little Aboriginal blood in them who were causing all the problems
Most of the legislation? I didn't realise they influenced gay marriage, the majority of the yearly budget plan, Covid-19 policy ect.
That's crazy it's like the illuminati or something
Thank you. Hate arguing with wokes about this. We didn't even had concepts of land ownership. Our lives were brutal yet simple back then, we just hunt & did ooga booga around the campfire.
bullshit, you got no idea. no knowledge
what is wokes?
@Random17Hero
An iconic word, use an insult for radical left-wing people who think they are "awake", thinking they have awareness how the world really works when they don't. They view the world through intersectionality & view natural human hierarchies are pure evil when they're not. These people have negative influence the Aboriginal community, especially my family & keeping them in a potential victim hood state & demoralised instead of trying to be hopeful for a a brighter future & build something of themselves. Our ancestors roam this country with nothing but animal skin pelts as undies, using rocks & spears to hunt & they think their life is hard now.
@@Random17Hero People who hate white people and blame children for the sins of the great grandfather, and believe wholeheartedly in the noble savage myth.
It's a shame there wasn't a chance for cross pollination of tech and language, aboriginals might have had a different story when the English showed up. But with the way the chips fell, Australia could have been taken over by ancient Mesopotamians.
No no no, we're rewriting history so this can't be known.
Actually this video is rewriting history most of this video isn't factual and is very wrong aboriginals had agriculture and trade with other tribes and many other things that settlers and explorers of that time would later write about when observing aboriginals including Man made water holes used as Wells and star mapping
@@LeJordan23 when will people like you two learn that the truth is in the middle of the these two ends.
@@LeJordan23 Source?
@@larrayyyyy Do your own research. Go on Google Scholar
You are citing the book Dark Emu.
The book Dark Emu, was famously revealed to be a hoax.
You have been lied to.
First nations is a myth; first peoples living in extended families roaming an estate following game, rain and ceremonies does not make nations. First Nations is an imported meme from Canada, a country in the throes of redefining the English language at the cost of truth. Do we as Australians really want to go down that path?
Thank you for clearing up the misinformation about the so-called Australian "first Nations".
We have a proud history of 500 000 years of culture!
*Invented a stick*
Genius culture of sustainable hunting tools.... unlike the British who clear the land and mine the earth to its ultimate demise
@Lux-x4y cause that happened? look at England now! It's completely gone cause they mined it all 😂
Hey !, it was a pretty nice stick.
@terryheeb6668 it's a mouldy island that's been environmentally poisoned and unsustainable for its people. Hence colonisation bro
60,000 years.
Great perspective. Balanced, not diminishing the aboriginal people and not romanticising to the point of fiction like some.
*peoples. Not people. We are not one people but many peoples. Get your shit straight mate.
No diminishingly of anyone. Brilliant!
The great fiction writer and pretend Aboriginal Bruce Pascoe would disagree with this factual video.
But, Albanese famously said that "Australia needs more truth tellers like Bruce".
@
Lol.
Bruce would be in ICU 15 minutes after viewing it. Even his sh!t would turn white.
@@normanmazlin6741 Albanese also says genocide is okay if it's in Donbas or Gaza.
@TheZodiacz Look up the definition of genocide. Maybe while you're at it, look up exaggeration and bull shit as well.
Maybe this is what should be taught in schools instead of the rubbish they are currently pushing.
The only way to learn about Aboriginal history is to talk to Aboriginal people but they're not allowed to be seen or talk in the media or have any say because that upset to the narrative of the white Aborigines. I can't remember when was the last time I saw a survival show where they were out with Aboriginal people not allowed anymore
"I'd like to pay tribute to the Bunyippie people, who conquered the previous inhabitants in a brutal genocide a few years before white people showed up, then wandered around to various other places looking for food before realizing it's much easier living next to white people full time."
That is lies.... genocide was committed by white people here exclusively
If we consider the most recent dates thrown about by the professor at the football game, then Australian Aborigines predate modern homo sapiens sapiens, which actually makes a lot of sense considering their technological achievement over that time. No major evolutionary events occurred to Australian Aborigines after they arrived here and dispelled the pygmy inhabitants.
Pygmy people, wow new to me , cheers 🍻 shall have a look uk 🇬🇧 England
Quite a few ancestors of Aboriginal people arrived from India about 3,500 years ago displacing or merging with the earlier people.
@karlm9584 just don't ask them to do further testing on the Mungo Man to confirm or deny the finding that Mungo Man and woman had different DNA to that of modern Indigenous Australians...
The professor on his death bed still claimed that there's no way his samples were contaminated. Yet they deny his research...
@@ThaMassDebater interesting I'll need to look that up
@@TheZodiacz it's further back than that but yes, Aborigines, Papuans and other Melanesian peoples can be traced back via DNA to archeological remains found in India dating to around 16,000 years ago.
There is however abundant DNA evidence that they have been the principle, if not exclusive inhabitants of Australia for 8,000 to 12,000 years.
At last, someone with the courage and integrity to state the bare facts and the flagrant truth. Thank you to Close the Gap Research. Australia was also Terra Nullius, prior to the first fleet there was not even the concept of national government let alone an authority or government to negotiate with.
Terra Australis was actually what the majority of explorers called it, in their ships logs, Glenn. Terra Nullus is used to slander them. Parts of The Pacific was an Astronomers "dream", then. Astral.- stars
There was authority and political leaders of each tribe you should get educated before you yap
@@Lux-x4y You merely confirm my ineluctable assertion that there was not even the concept of "National" government.
Aboriginal people would still be living like isolated tribes if they were never colonised
A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation. We saved them from extinction.
@@sidecarmisanthrope5927there was no evidence of cannibalism or infanticide and Aboriginals were not saved from colonisation. British culture was saved by colonisation
Thats quite ignorant. You're saying a people that have dated their existence back 65,000 years was almost at the brink of destruction just before the western forces colonised the place? @sidecarmisanthrope5927
@@sidecarmisanthrope5927 Western culture will make itself extinct just as quickly based on how unsustainable it is. I don’t think it’s accurate to paint indigenous ways of living as necessarily less effective for survival. Cannibalism and infanticide are very much part of humanity in all corners of the world and throughout history to this very day.
Well that's about the most obvious thing I've read
In the example of China, it's worth noting that the Silk Road was crucial even in early development.
Your two examples of domesticated animals (cattle and chicken) made their way to China from the Middle East and SE Asia respectively.
Chickens originated in vietnam.
@erazer5685 last I checked, Vietnam is located in South East Asia
But yeah, that is the more specific point of origin
@@347Jimmy Sorry mate, I should have read your comment correctly.
@erazer5685 all good 👍 I could have been more specific in the first place 🤷🏻♂️
Why is most of this video just Chinese history. I get it’s worth mentioning as a case study but it’s too long
Just because the history of China is long and complex compared to the same time frame in Australia, where nothing changed.
Because the person who made the video is a bloody idiot who wants to say look how intelligent I am not actually stick to the content
This video is brilliant! Thank you!
2:16 they don’t get on today. There was an aboriginal family of about 20 in the house across the road from mine, and every so often there’d be a brawl in the street. I found out it was because members of another tribe came by.
Norforce the soldiers tasked with patrolling the top end are most aborigines and sometimes people go missing. Patrols will come back minus a member of a rival tribe, and just look at Alice Springs.
They're not tribes anymore just Family groups
@ so why do they keep saying i’m from gibberish tribe, the traditional owners of this place? Obviously they still think they are.
I'm showing this to my children on the way to school EVERY DAY!!
Supposedly 40,000+ years of history and they never invented the bow and arrow. Now apparently they are smart enough to be politicians, WTF?
This is dumbest argument... They didn't need bows when their spear skills were so good they can hit a fish between the eyes with a spear from 80 feet away!
@@politicallyincorrectpanda why invent Bronze? the stone age was working just fine. same logic as your excuse for these backwards peoples
@@politicallyincorrectpanda no the ones who couldn't figure out farming are the dumb ones lol
@@internethardcase they did lol while moving around as nomads they were spreading seeds strategically... They understood cultivation they just didn't plant them in perfect rows!
@@politicallyincorrectpanda Can you add a link to proof of your spear throwing claim?
Sooo, if the Australian aborigines where never colonized, they would still be in a Neolithic state.
Yep, because there was no need to develop further
They never even progressed to the neolithic age.
A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation.
More Palaeolithic, the Neolithic describes a period where agriculture and permanent habitation is used, but not metallurgy of any substantial kind.
Australia has very few native plants that can be cultivated and farmed (such as the Munrong Yam), and no native beasts of burden to help with heavy work such as plowing (so no horses, ox, etc). What there is provides such little nutrition compared to other continents, and the energy cost required to get it is far higher than just getting a chicken from a merchant like what other continents have done for thousands of years
We think of Australia as a farming country abundant in wheat, sheep, cows and so on but none of those are native to Australia, which is a large reason why development didn't happen; if you want to build a complex society then agriculture is a non-negotiable. Availability of proteins, carbohydrates and fats is what builds a society and Australia is very much lacking in that department.
This should be required viewing for everybody sprouting the rote rambling about First Nations always was and whatever blah they mumble at every gathering of more than three people.
The comparison between Aboriginal societies and civilizations like China ignores one of the most critical factors in the development of human societies: geography and the availability of domesticable plants and animals. Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel laid out this argument clearly-civilizations with access to nutrient-rich crops like rice, wheat, or corn, and animals like pigs, cows, and horses, had significant advantages in food production, transportation, and labor, which allowed for population growth and complex societal structures.
Aboriginal people didn’t lack intelligence, resourcefulness, or creativity-they lacked the same environmental conditions that allowed other societies to develop surplus-based economies. Instead, they perfected methods suited to their environment, such as fire-stick farming, which sustained ecosystems and ensured survival in the often harsh Australian landscape for tens of thousands of years. That’s a level of sustainability and adaptability most modern societies can’t claim.
The reality TV analogy is spot-on. Many Westerners, even with access to modern tools and knowledge, struggle to survive in the wilderness. That doesn’t make them less capable-it shows how much their survival depends on environmental conditions and resources. Aboriginal people thrived in one of the world’s most challenging environments for tens of thousands of years without destroying it-a feat that deserves respect, not ridicule.
The argument that societal development is a direct result of race is not just ignorant; it’s been debunked countless times. Geography and environment are the real driving forces behind the pace of technological advancement, not inherent qualities of a people. Aboriginal people demonstrated incredible ingenuity and resilience in mastering their environment, and that is a legacy worth celebrating.
Sounds great, but it doesn’t really explain their current situation to well though. They have been part of a first world society for a long time now, with benefits that others don’t get.
@greg-m3m Their leaders certainly think so. They say that ‘sit down’ money as they call it is the worst thing that ever happened to them.
All that may be true but they still did not have a 'Nation'
@@useruseruseruseruser790 tens of thousands of years of culture were derailed basically overnight, the indigenous Australians were simply not built for the change, similarly to but more extreme than how rapid technological advancement in the west is stressing social structures and personal lives. We can't expect them to be entirely consumed by a colonial power, experience horrific genocide, and then just suddenly and seamlessly change their entire societal structure and culture to fit Anglo-Saxon lifestyle. Oh, and that's before talking about alcohol.
The megafauna and bushfires might argue with you there, on not destroying it. And surviving in an environment for 10,000 years and never advancing beyond neolithic tech or building any sort of city is pretty weak. Yeah, there's no corn or wheat. But corn, wheat and rice were genetically selected over time to be the powerhouse crops that allowed for civilisations to rise. I'm pretty sure you could selectively breed something in our diverse line up of flora that could sustain a population. Or build boats and figure out how to fish, and use salt to cure it. A hollowed out log isn't a boat, many, many other civilisations on earth built their cities on the coast lines for exactly this reason.
According to National Geographic definition of nation for kids “A nation is a group of people who share common characteristics, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, and/or geography, and are united by a political system that governs the whole society: “
We have seen clearly that the indigenous people had their own lore and some groups overlapped somewhat in this.
This presentation undermines any credibility your movement has… not picking about a word and then going on a long winded rant that is irrelevant to the question of whether the people who lived here prior to British Invasion were the rightful owners at the time. The whole question is not about whether they were one group or many , it’s about being honest that human groups will invade others territory if it suits them , just as China experienced repeatedly and Australian indigenous groups experienced repeatedly throughout their history.
Were the Mongols apologists to the Chinese?
Sadly the reality is when might overwhelms whether right or not, the injured can fight to the death or accept their fate and get on with living. That’s what the convicts did.
There are always gains and losses with change. Dwelling on the past is irrelevant to getting on with life and victim mentality never advances anyone in the end
"a group of people who share common characteristics, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, and/or geography, and are united by a political system that governs the whole society" - Sounds exactly like my family to every last item. That's clearly a "progressive" hijacking of language, undermining any credibility you have.
You say; "This presentation undermines any credibility your movement has… not picking about a word and then going on a long winded rant that is irrelevant to the question of whether the people who lived here prior to British Invasion were the rightful owners at the time.''
~
Perhaps you haven't had your morning coffee yet, or whatever, but you clearly do not understand what the term, 'irrelevant to the question' means, not that there was actually a question asked.
The video explained why, at colonisation, our stone age nomadic Aboriginals were not, and never had been, NATIONS.
Nothing else.
Of course it was wrong to show Aborigines wearing something around their waist, hiding their bottoms and private parts, as unless the weather was really cold, they were mostly all naked, male and female alike.
As for what National Geographic says, '“A nation is a group of people who share common characteristics, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, and/or geography, and are united by a political system that governs the whole society: “'
Well there was no shared language, around 250 different ones.
No shared history as they came from different countries and at colonisation each had their own Dreamtime version of their history.
Ethnicity? Melanesians are NOT Aborigines.
Culture? While many Aboriginal groups/tribes had similar cultures they are all different to each other either in a small or large way, and again, Melanesians were not nomadic hunter gatherers.
Geography? Australia is a land of sweeping plains, of ragged mountain ranges, of snow in winter along with extremely hot desert areas and wet tropical coastal fringes, most having never seen or heard of the sea, hardly a shared experience for our 250 language groups.
And, these 250 language groups did not share a political system, unless you wish to claim that no political system is a shared one.
Go and have that coffee or rum or whatever, then come and have another shot at it. Cheers.
read my comment for more detailed disagreements with this video.
But in the abbo's case, it's incredibly profitable for the white ones.
@@pittycrossactually there was common language for example the Ngarabal (NSW) people shared about 60% of their language with surrounding nations such as Gamilaroi and Yugambul. This was used for trade and even alliances when there was wars with each other. There is literal artefacts in possession of certain tribal groups that came from several tribes over showing evidence of trading happening. Mind you the land mass of Gamilaroi nation which spoke one language with multiple variations is larger than that of the country of Wales which no one disputes is a nation. There is beyond ample evidence to suggest there was structure and small government within each group which linked to a larger language identity. As for the concept of a nation, yes as soon as Aboriginal ppl started learning English we referred to ourselves as “nations” and this is my “country”.
I felt like I was going crazy with that drawn-out history lesson about china.
I relocated to Australia 2 years ago? What am I now? Last Nations? Coach Class? The term First Nations was made up by extreme activist. There are terms like “indigenous”, or “aboriginal”. The wheel does not have to be reinvented, especially not with terms, which are devaluing the other way round.
@sunnyssundries all part of the agenda mate. You'll be happy owning nothing after you're convinced it wasn't actually available for ownership to begin with. Never mind that indigenous tribal culture had no concept of ownership, nor do they satisfy Locke or Hume's criteria for ownership.
The longer you live in Oz the more the left will despise your existence.....unless you're indigenous
We need more videos like this.
Could have cut the development of china part to about half that time though, or thrown in some European examples for variety.
But overall a good video, and needs to be said.
It's just some woman who thinks she's highly intelligent so she just waffles off with no regard for what the audience wants to see
Outstanding - very well presented, should be part of the school curriculum, particularly in those States where the curriculum must have an Aboriginal bias.
I can tell you there are many incorrect claims made in this video that are very false. read my comment for details.
Note: i am not aboriginal, but it is evident that "close the gap" have a bias to themselves as their information directly conflicts even with their references. i have read Guns, germs, and steel and they use a quote from it despite the video disagreeing with Diamonds perceptions put forward in his book. This video has HUGE bias.
Excellent video. The wholesale importation of American and Canadian terms to describe very different indigenous populations is ridiculous. The romantic view of Aboriginal people living in harmony and in peace is slowly and thankfully being eroded. 65,000 years (some claim, ridiculously) and the entire population of the continent never passed the population of the city of ancient Rome. Life for them was dirty, brutal and painful. No writing, innovation or development, despite their warfare and massive mortality rates.
Ask the Kuranda Pygmies who was first.
No evidence exists
We cannot move forward by looking in the rear view mirror. We need to look forward, together. Unity is our strength 🇦🇺
knowledge and respectful conversation creates unity
Yeah yeah, and diversity is also our strength. Go to Europe and see how diversity has strengthened them.
I said “unity is our strength” I did not say diversity is our strength.
@ No, I did. I was taking the piss out of today’s progressive mantra. I don’t know if you have noticed, obviously not, but due to identity politics our society is divided like it has never been before.
@@useruseruseruseruser790I will leave you alone to hurl your insults in the safety of the internet.💩
there is only a gap because they wont work and they dont wat to go to school
The gap existed before contact 🤔🤷♂️
@greg-m3m I agree. Many variables at play..
But the socio-economic gap existed before colonisation, right? Therefore, whoever claims that Colonisation CAUSED the gap, is being misleading right? 🤔
And refuse to move where the work is like everybody else has to.
@@southern-samurairefuse to assimilate?
@@southern-samurai Our biggest mining operations are outside of remote communities on their land, yet they remain unemployed. What are our governments doing to skill up those communities so they can work in the mining sector?
this is a very succinct appraisal and explanation of the history of Australia pre colonization by the british and should be taught in every class room and university. to forever quash this current nonsense that the abos were somehow a noble and intelligent race. the truth is they would be now extinct if they had been able to carry on the way they were when the British pulled them yelling and screeching from the morass they were in. some are still screeching (lydia thorpe and others)
What a load of shit. Our race had existed for many thousands of years in harmony with our environment and would have continued to do so. The invasion by Europeans was the worst catastrophy to befall our people. We lived a simple lifestyle and didn't need All the crap that was considered civ
I reckon things would've been alright if the Brits mostly behaved like civilised people should when they were spreading their civilisation
there was no concept of "nation" or "national identity" until the hundred years war, which ended in 1453.
prior to that, loyalty was to kings (kingdoms) and emperors (empires), the concept of a national identity emerged in france as a response to repeated invasions by english kings who did have a rightful claim to the french throne but were not actually french. in essence "france is not its king, france is its people", this line of thinking deligitimised the claims of foreign rulers to france's throne and dramatically improved france's ability to defend itself against foreign invasions.
as an idea it was also incredibly influential in the following centuries, other nations began to follow suit, both as a natural spread and as something actively promoted by rulers who figured out that loyalty to "nation" could be far stronger than loyalty to the king, as bad decisions by the king could damage loyalty but the "nation" is a concept that is innocent of all the king's mistakes, which is exactly why france adopted it, france had many incompetent kings during the hundred years war and this divided the loyalty of the french people between the different claimants to the throne, and the idea of nationhood changed that so thoroughly that france went from "fighting over who gets to be king" to thinking "hey maybe we don't need a king".
in essence, the concept of a "nation" and "national identity" is something you get AFTER the english invade you, the reason we can say that the english have invaded 90% of the world's nations is because being invaded by the english is what triggers the transformation from "kingdom/empire" to "nation".
arguably nationhood was only really solidified with napoleon. Even the British didn't develop proper nationhood outside the elites until they fought Napoleon. British Nationhood was brought on by the dominance of Napoleon and the idea that the British were the sole strength left, thus generating a unity in the concept of Britain.
Consider that the USA was developed from the new concept of nationalism. It was the ideas in France which in a sense enlightened the American colonies to develop their own idea of nationhood. Something the Canadian provinces were not interested in.
there were states which had no monarch- Athens, Swiss Confederacy, Iceland, so what about them?
@@TheZodiacz the idea of a "nation" has no set origin, its a concept that developed over time, comparing it to smartphones, post HYW france is the first iphone, the swiss confederacy is the first mobile phone, athens is the first wallphone, iceland is the first radio, and tribes are the first "smoke signals"
the modern idea of a nation state didn't exist until napoleon, switzerland didn't have its first president until the 1850s, the whole point of this is if you saw someone using smoke signals and they said "its a samsung galaxy note 7 i swear" would you bring up the fact that they release toxic fumes when they burn and would make for a poor signal fire (and also potentially lethal)?
First Nations is just an American word we have adopted in the very recent years
True
They were still living in the stone age.
Real, 1400s Rome had building with marble while these aboriginals in the 1400s couldn’t even tie a stone to a stick to make it sharper yet they claim to be around for 60,000 years SMH
Not sure how they can claim..."Oldest Continuous Living Culture in the World" status all the time.
How long ago was "Lucy" discovered in Africa again ? 🤔🤨
The term First Nations has been stolen from North America, where in order to legally bind treaties between Europeans and tribes the tribes had to be referred to as Nations on the legal paperwork.
It's also very patronizing to Aboriginal Australians as it also implies no difference between Canada and Australia, a sense of "they" are "all the same".
5:55 Strong point. They had to make do with what they had. And all the world's activity was happening mostly in particular areas which made progress easier, and even with the wars came development as each new empire built on top of the existing land and ideas and innovated
Can't be called first nations when they were never united as a nation just a bunch of different tribes that hated each other. Oh wait nothing's changed hahaha
Great map of the language groups. All contained within the colonial, European map of the coastline.
Well done. Factual, objective and balanced.
"The History of Central Banking and the enslavement of mankind" by Stephen Mitford Goodson is a compact easy to read little book that has very surprising referenced historical information even for those who believe they've discovered they didn't teach the truth in school.
Bla bla bla bla fkn blah
..
Did Australien tribes not clash between themselves every now and then? Pretty sure some of those were hostile towards each other, fighting over food sources.
How do you know that about Aboriginal history?
@@sol-leks6122 How many children did an Australian aboriginal woman have on average before the time the Europeans arrived.
@@sol-leks6122 how do you know anything about aboriginal history? we only have written accounts from settlers and an understanding of human nature to go off. do you think that aboriginals were special in that they were the only group in 100 000 000 000+ people that have lived to not be tribal and violent?
Sometimes the other tribes were the food source. A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation. 60,000 years and the best they could come up with was 3 sticks. A straight stick, a bent stick and a hollow stick. Yeah, great achievements.
No there was no hostility towards other tribes. Food sources were plentiful with the knowledge and culture they had with even shared hunting grounds.
Traditional or Ancestral lands are more appropriate terms to use than nations. Certainly each Aboriginal tribe had knowledge of where its territory ended by natural borders or tradition. You might view the British colonizers as "just" another "tribe" from outside the traditional territory (to each Aboriginal tribal community), descended from the British isles or Europe, bringing about unprecedented changes to the Australian human way of life. I have no knowledge if there is evidence of waves of "first" Australians coming in at different intervals, with the later arrivals clashing with the earlier arrivals, most likely this scenario happened.
Aborigines understood that they did not own land, they were part of the land, they belonged to the land. The land owned them. They occupied the land, they did not own it. The TIs, on the other hand, did own particular, defined, parcels of land according to the rules of TI society at the time. Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians.
Bullshit. When have we ever had power and rights over other Australians???? It’s been a civil rights struggle ever since your arrival. Check your surroundings mate, who’s in control coz it sure isn’t us (Aboriginals)
TI for what, Torres Strait Islanders?
@@DrWoofOfficial Yes.
@@vintagebabyseventythree6244Aboriginal power and control over other Australians would have been the result if the 'Voice' referendum had succeeded.
Aboriginals owned the land by definition of ownership. Custodial owners
To claim that the aboriginal peoples didn't advance because they had a low population is disingenuous, as is linking this to isolation. They had a low population because they didn't advance, and too, this kept them relatively but not totally isolated.
All they achieved was eating bugs under a tree, while other countries indigenous people trained animals, built structures and grew as civilisations.
5:27 it's called Mao Land 🇨🇳, not China 🇹🇼. It isn't difficult to differentiate both.
they were never a nation
A track through the bush is not a road. Roads, like nations, are engineered.
I'm fairly certain when the people from Indonesia & Papua New Guinea come to Australia over 10,000 years ago they went on strike.
I like your thinking woody!!.🤣🤣
A lot of the tribes were cannibals and practised infanticide during lean times. Some Archaeologists believe that the Australian Aboriginal would have gone extinct if not for colonisation. 60,000 years and the best they could come up with was 3 sticks. A straight stick, a bent stick and a hollow stick. Yeah, great achievements.
No evidence of cannibalism or infanticide and Aboriginals would have not gone extinct. Come up with a advanced culture and way of life compared to the British hence convicts
@@Lux-x4y There are literally hundreds of official colonial accounts of cannibalism and infanticide. Wilful ignorance won't change that. "British HENCE convicts"? WTF?
@sidecarmisanthrope5927 lies. There is no evidence of cannibalism or infanticide that is a fact.
@sidecarmisanthrope5927 accounts are is not evidence :) I can make an account that the sky is purple lmao you believe what you read like a commoner nobody
@@Lux-x4y You are sadly misinformed. There are plenty of records showing Cannibalism. Just do a search on Australian Aboriginal Cannibalism. You will see many eyewitness accounts. The NSW police have records of infanticide. Those are the facts.
Oh no, woke unicorns are going to get upset because you speak the truth 🤪😆
Dehumanising fictionalized literature is the foundation of colonisation...the truth is your fragility and support of genocide of the world's oldest continuous advanced culture on earth
Great video. The term "First Nations" was appropriated from Canada by activists in a cynical attempt to promote the myth of aboriginal sovereignty, and further their treaty agenda, leading on to reparations. Although some activists still haven't got the memo, last years decisive Referendum result indicated that the majority of Australians are not prepared swallow this First Nations tripe and everything that goes with it. One flag, one country, one people.
I laugh at their latest claim to be architects & builders because the put some rocks in the water to trap fish. 😂
First Nations is a business and a profitable one so no real truth telling will make it go away. A recent example is the proposal to give the Olympic Games in Brisbane an aboriginal flavour and to use the games to promote aboriginal cultural tourism.
We seem to have dropped the "worlds oldest civilisation" title that used to be in vogue for quite a while. Australia lacked a farmable crop e.g. wheat or animals e.g. cattle, llamas, sheep. I think this impeded movement beyond hunter gatherer.
Excellent format, and facts, keep it up!
The great wise Aboriginal elder Mungulungudung also known as Bruce Pascoe would disagree.
They were stone aged nomads , that hadn’t invented the wheel, they didn’t have a Bronze Age and medieval age , no renaissance, no Victorian age , no written language.. colonialism was the best thing to happen to the aborigines..almost everything we know as aboriginal art , aboriginal flag and stories all began in the 1970s and get more magnificent with every passing year a lot of fabricating people and places.. just look at their community’s today.. this video is great ..I have been thinking this ever since I first heard ..first nations
Go and read a bit of history mate. Massacres galore, rapes, theft of children, If I asked you to choose between a simple nomadic lifestyle where you would have to contend with hostile nature and reasonably often attacks from fellow tribes ( mind you casualties were only ever men and generally not more than 30 in a battle) which would you choose? HLooking at our current state where 50 years of our own resistance and reconciliation from the rest of the country has ended this oppression and put us on the same scale as the rest of the country is not an accurate assessment of the effects of colonisation but rather of modern democracy post world war 2. Try with google searching some massacres where women and babies were trampled with horses and then burned to death.
@gudapictures who did that ? Arrest them .. I tried to read aboriginal history but they didn't write anything down because they were and mostly still are illiterate.. don't make excuses aboriginal and Torres Strait people get alot more opportunities than anyone else who is Australian. Do you want to tell us about child rape and cannibalism amongst aboriginal communities back in the day?
@@gudapicturesyou aren’t a real Aussie
@@gudapictures Aboriginals did this as well. When tribes fought each other, they would slay all but the women, so they would be breading stock. Those slain where food for the next couple of weeks. And if food was scarce they would eat a kid, or find another tribe to slaughter and take what they had.
I'm Aboriginal and I despise the ridiculous term first nations, it's an insult to us as we had no nation. And the majority of other Aboriginal people I know think the same, much the same as we're now supposedly offended by the words Aboriginal or Indigenous but the do-gooders didn't think to.consult us first..
To them, you're just a tool for them to leverage in order for them to get more funding and/or make themselves look more virtuous.
I am so sick of people play acting that Australian Aboriginals had a deep an meaningful culture. They did not. Humans can not get any simpler than Aus Aboriginals. Literally stone age man when Cook landed.
They were very good at "just" surviving in a very challenging environment.
thoughts on maori?
@@DrWoofOfficial
They were a different kettle of fish.
Māori people had village societies with agricultural skills. Their culture is deep and intricate.
Aboriginals had the deepest and most advanced sustainable meaningful culture on earth sir
@@Lux-x4ydidn’t they drive multiple species into extinction and also change the environmental makeup of certain areas of the country through burning down sections of forest.
@hillbilly3772 no they didn't drive species into extinction their practices were sustainable and environmentally they improved the land. Unlike the mass extinction of over 500 native species and total environment decimation since colonisers that's obvious.
They didn’t even map the country out, let alone unify the tribes.
OT but genghis invaded by bribing the guards. fat lot of good that wall did lol
First nation's is a Canadian term. It has become used in Australia as an attempt to push for a treaty (financial compensation). There were never nations prior to settlement
They're not first nations ppl. The Papuans were here first. When aborigines came here they wiped out the Papuans. Aborigines are not indigenous to Australia. They're indigenous to southern India and Sri Lanka.
Where did the Papuans come from and what evidence is there to support what you say?
How do you figure that!?
@sol-leks6122 The information comes from a book called Cape York Savage Frontier by Rodney Liddell. It was banned in the 90s by the Australian government because it didn't fit their narrative concerning aboriginal history.
@Mark70609 It's all in a book called Cape York Savage Frontier by Rodney Liddell.
@@robertaustin6940 what makes you think that the book is accurate?
I’m not saying I doubt you I would like to know why you found it to be compelling?
given another 10 thousand years they may have invented the bow & arrow maybe a stone house
Interesting but a bit laborious, I think. Is the story of the Chinese Dynasties necessary? Perhaps a simpler differentiation between hunter-gather groups and Nations would be better. The definition of the word 'Nation' needs to be defined. One definition of a Nation is that a Nation is a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. The point needs to be made clearly that Aborigines never met this definition and, therefore, Aboriginal Nations never existed. The statement that Aboriginal groups had no trade is wrong. Some trade did occur regularly between disparate Aboriginal groups.
Importantly, Aboriginal societies were very different from those of the Maori in NZ, and the Torres Straits Islanders, for example. These other groups had well organised societies with land ownership and structured societies. The Aborigines had neither.
There were never any Aboriginal Nations.
I don't understand why people think that because the Maori and TI were gardeners/farmers of sorts, then it is OK to accept that they owned their own land, but, because Aboriginals were nomadic and moved around their land in yearly cycles, they did not own their land.
Every native person, clan or tribe knew exactly where their land started and ended and that if they were found on some other group's land they would likely be killed.
I just do not get it.
@@pittycross Aborigines understood that they did not own land, they were part of the land, they belonged to the land. The land owned them. They occupied the land, they did not own it. The TIs, on the other hand, did own particular, defined, parcels of land according to the rules of TI society at the time. Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians.
“In Mabo, it was conceded by all parties and accepted by the Court that the Crown had acquired sovereignty of Australia by occupancy under international law; the international law doctrine of terra nullius was, therefore, not an issue in Mabo. Indeed, ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned in any of the plaintiffs’ submissions, and was not referred to at all during the four days of substantive argument before the High Court of Australia. Furthermore, all members of the High Court concluded that, irrespective of the original presence of the Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common law, Australia was a territory acquired by settlement.”
You say, "“In Mabo, it was conceded by all parties and accepted by the Court that the Crown had acquired sovereignty of Australia by occupancy under international law."
Of course it was accepted by all parties as it was British law.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that at colonisation all Aboriginals OWNED the land they, their family/clan/tribe lived on.
I don't understand why so many people appear scared/reluctant to admit this. I accept that the crown at colonisation owned all the land, but that came about because our stone age Aboriginals did not/could not, put up a strong defence of it like modern people do.
I have recently finished reading Baldwin Spencer's anthropological book, 'Wanderings in Wild Australia', published in 1928 but written in the period up to 1911 while studying native tribes in the NT.
On page 911 (by coincidence) and page 912 he describes how, after watching a burial ceremony, the two distinct groups (Malualla and Tjikaaluulla) of Bathurst Island natives taking part in it immediately went to their own camps and had no intercourse with one another.
He states, "we found that on Melville and Bathurst islands there were a number of local groups each of which was supposed to be the OWNER of a certain definite part of the country and had a definite name."
Describing where on a map the local groups on the two islands lived, Spencer writes;
"There is first the name of the locality and second that of the group inhabiting and OWNING it, this name being always formed by adding the suffix -ulla to that of the locality."
I expect that this man, Sir Baldwin Spencer, is/was accepted by his peers, dead and alive, as one of the greatest and most diligent anthropologists who ever lived. I have a number of his works, beginning in the late 1800's.
These comments are towards the end of this book and so more readily came to mind.
I reiterate, just because the government at colonisation claimed ownership of the land, sovereignty, that does not for a second mean that it was not OWNED by native groups beforehand.
@@pittycross, as I have said before:
Aborigines understood that they did not own land, they were part of the land, they belonged to the land. The land owned them. They occupied the land, they did not own it. The TIs, on the other hand, did own particular, defined, parcels of land according to the rules of TI society at the time. Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians.
@@lindsayhackett7678 Again Lindsay you post the words of Yothu Yindi band member,
Mandawuy Yunupingu, who on TH-cam in the 1st 10 seconds or so of 'Yothu Yindi- "Tribal Voice"' says:
"We don't believe we don't own mother earth, the earth owns us."
It was just some nonsense to satisfy the woke, those they have sucked in to try and elevate their connection to 'mother earth.
But as I stated on another site, they most certainly believed they owned the land when they went to court to try and prevent the Commonwealth and Nabalco from coming onto their tribal land in the Yirrkala Land case, 1970.
But, your constant inclusion of Mandaways little speech, (which Baldwin Spencer has poo-pooed) makes me wonder which other Dreamtime stories do you accept as fact?
Why would these people fight to the death all across Australia pre colonisation (and after) with strangers who came uninvited onto their land if they did not believe they owned it?
You said; "Today, Aborigines and their supporters claim Aborigines owned the land because, if accepted, it would give them power and rights over other Australians."
Yes, I have said exactly the same thing, however my argument is with the mostly mainstream mixed race ones who pretend to have continued traditional culture without interruption since colonisation.
Full-blood people who have remained on their traditional tribal lands since colonisation, like most in Arnhem Land, obviously still do own their land, albeit, I fully accept that sovereignty supersedes their claims.
But, if the crown wants to take their land, for any reason, then they should be paid compensation for it.
Again though, they do not need the large areas of land they once did when they were nomadic hunter gatherers, so smaller areas which have special meaning to them should be granted to them and the rest dealt with, but open to purchase by any Australians.
I remember hearing that Aboriginals didn’t own the land, the land owned them…what happened to that?
W Men invented everything.
China invented everything in parallel and independently.
Writing, the printing press, currency (including fiat currency and paper money) and bureaucracy, as well as textiles, leatherworking, metallurgy and even mass production and counterfeit luxury items such as fake Ming vases (produced during the Qing dynasty), were all being produced in China, hundreds of years before regular commerce with the West really kicked into high gear, during and after the Opium Wars.
Mathematics: Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians developed advanced mathematical systems, and the concept of zero came from India.
Medicine: Indigenous people across the Americas used complex herbal remedies long before European settlers arrived, and Chinese medicine has a history spanning thousands of years.
Writing: Systems like cuneiform in Mesopotamia and hieroglyphics in Egypt predate European alphabets.
Navigation: Arabs developed the astrolabe, and Polynesians mastered open-ocean navigation without Western tools.
Even in the modern era, countless innovations have come from people of color. For instance, the traffic light (Garrett Morgan), blood banks (Charles Drew), and fiber-optic cables (Narinder Singh Kapany) were all pioneered by non-white individuals.
@zarramar3458 Oh alright, W Men invented everything you own.
You must be colourblind, if you think the inventers of the things you mentioned are White? I hope You are Not using things that were created by Non White people!!
@@Jeremy-ho3vi no they didn’t
HEAR! 👂 HERE! 🇦🇺
I have been espousing this for some considerable time now.
Pleasing to see someone else espousing what is little more than old fashioned common sense. (And truth)
Great job.
Shall share far and wide.
Thankyou 🙏🌸
First Immigrants.
Aboriginal people did have some trade. Mostly though it was stones, totems and women. Trading women was part of corroboree. Women were often stolen, and the successful men had 2 or more wives
That is a lie females were not stolen.
Tell the museum's to give give artifacts back man
I agree with the point but its all gotta go back or none of it, treating different ancient peoples differently would make u racist :(
My aboriginal heritage is my greatest shame 🇦🇺
Bear it well. Be who you are. But don't be defined by what others do.
No mate. Just stay away from this victimhood bs and you are every bit like anyone else,in the country.
Your Australian !
Like me 😁
Something to be mighty proud of !
@greg-m3m Sort of. There were never any British military here. I have Irish heritage - they sent their armies to attack us loads of times. Hundreds of boats full of soldiers. 100% though welfare and nanny state policies never help anyone. The creation of these remote communities doesn’t give them a chance at success.
@ Thanks for your response. I need to say that life was pretty tough for everyone in Australia back then. Different people seem to have responded in different ways. There are so many cultures/peoples across the world who have had tragic histories - unfortunately the world doesn’t care. You need to pick yourselves up and move on as best you can. Embracing victimhood just doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy.
The gap will never get any better until we are all treated equally....sit down money is the curse of Aboriginal people
This video’s take is outdated and dripping with bias. Claiming there were "no First Nations" in Australia dismisses the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their right to define themselves. "Nation" isn’t exclusive to Western systems. Aboriginal groups had complex governance, law, trade networks, and land stewardship, none of which fit into the narrow colonial framework this video idolises. Tindale’s map is flawed, freezing living cultures in time, but it doesn’t erase their significance or dynamism.
The China comparison? Laughable. Aboriginal societies thrived for over 65,000 years, adapting to harsh conditions with sustainable practices like fire-stick farming and knowledge systems grounded in land and sky. They didn’t need massive populations or agriculture in a European sense, they had what worked for them. Every culture has conflicts; cherry-picking Aboriginal ones to portray chaos while ignoring diplomacy, law, and trade is as dishonest as it gets.
What’s worse is the bigoted commentary this video fuels. It’s a breeding ground for echo chambers that misinform and radicalise. Simplistic, dismissive narratives like this feed ignorance and division. Australia’s First Nations deserve respect, not lazy arguments rooted in outdated anthropology. Echo chambers are dangerous, they harden prejudice and stifle understanding. Break the cycle. Think critically.
Laughable indeed!
Homo Sapiens did the same for hundreds of thousands of years. There's nothing wrong with being tribal people; it's just a fact.
The video the ABC don't want you to see.
Wait til you figure out that the garigal people numbered about 60 people and they were were ALL gone before 1800
There's a huge gap between the Stone Age and Modernity. Aborigines got modernity for a fraction of the price Europeans had to pay. Not to mention the fact that the Japanese would have enslaved the Aborigines if all they had to defend their "nations" were spears and boomerangs.
Never built.
Never will.
0:08 so that is a map depicting post-c0l0n1@l Australia divided by language groups?!
Brilliant!! This should be shown to primary school kids.
Oh so the aboriginal people were not around 60,000 yrs? What a suprise
You need to have an alphabet to write down your laws to be classified as a nation IMO