Inconvenient Truths About Indigenous Past

While the myth of the noble savage continues to have traction in the houses of parliament and other places frequented by those that signal virtue, there are some inconvenient truths about Australia’s aboriginal tribes and their practises.

While the modern Marxist academics that dominate Australian educational institutions cultivate the ‘British invader’ narrative, its healthy to look at some realities of the great southern continent prior to 1788. The continent was not united under one flag, or a particular leader, not even a definitive culture. In Australia’s History Themes & Debates a it is said, “There were perhaps as many as 600 distinct languages . . .” (Lyons, M. & Russell, P. p3).

Aboriginal Arrival: 40,000 years 50,000 years, 60,000 years. Your Guess. 

In various accounts and publications the dates vary but what is ten or twenty thousand years. Archaeological findings date a site in Kakadu National Park as being occupied by humans as far back as 50,000 years ago (it’s funny how science is so accurate that it gives us rounded figures all the time). The theory of aboriginal arrival is that it occurred at a time when sea levels were much lower due to an ice age. This allowed people from southern and eastern Asia, and what is now Papua New Guinea to trek in ‘suggested’ migratory waves to occupy the Australian continent.

The Tryhybrid theory suggesst three waves of migration. The first a pygmy group (called the Negritos) whose descendants continue to exist in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, the second a group known as the Murrayians have links to the Ainu people of northern Japan, the third group are tied to the people of southern India. Suggestions that one race of people inhabited Australia over the last 50,000 years are almost laughable, and bones resembling pygmoid peoples found at Lake Mungo and Kow Swamp disprove it categorically.

Women As Second Class Citizens

Aboriginal clans/tribes treat women as inferior, second rate citizens. There can be no denial even to this day. Stephanie Jarrett wrote, “It is important to acknowledge [the] link between today’s Aboriginal violence and violent, pre-contact tradition, because until policymakers are honest in their assessment of the causes, Aboriginal people can never be liberated from violence…Deep cultural change is necessary, away from traditional norms and practices of violence.”

In many Australian aboriginal tribes there are basically rules that apply to women and rules that apply to men. Women for instance are denied the right to even set foot on grounds used for initiation ceremonies. Due to their overtly superstitious nature, aboriginal tribes felt it was a ‘sign of misfortune’ if a woman merely stepped over a man’s possessions.

Read more at the following link if you want the sickening details of violence against women in Australia’s remote Northern Territory. The case of Trenton Cunningham who beat his wife to death (the mother of their 4 children) for not bringing him a cup of water, is just one example.

There are voices within the Australian aboriginal community that are trying to bring this issue to public attention, but they are too often met with media blackouts and brick walls. The reason for this is the political agenda that leftist academics and left wing media propagate is founded in the notion of the ‘noble savage’, and any deviation from this narrative is harmful to their relevance.

The Falsified Wars

Screen Shot 2018-06-02 at 1.08.54 pm
Van Dieman’s Land notice to aboriginal people.

The now trendy terms ‘Frontier Wars’ and ‘Colonial Wars’ are another tool of the leftist academia and media that wish to invent new historical narratives.

The definition of war is as follows: a conflict among political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude.

In order to skew the above definition in favour of a war taking place between aboriginal tribes and the British settlers, we have to be very loose with the term hostilities. One source notes hostility as “unfriendliness or opposition”. In that sense you could say the Frontier Wars continue to this day, as Australian aboriginal spokesmen and women are constantly rallying for change and opposing the state.

The closest that mainland Australia came to war was Pemulwuy’s sporadic murdering of random settlers and his destruction of farmlands. This though was motivated by aboriginal tribal law that is a stunted form of ‘eye for an eye’ punishment. The difference in aboriginal custom is that if an aboriginal tribal member is killed, anyone from the opposing tribe can be killed. Hence the random killings and destruction of farmlands the settlers suffered.

In Tasmania martial law was declared for a period between 1928 and 1932. After random killings by aboriginals in settled regions of Tasmania, the governor tragically had no other option than to declare martial law. The resultant ‘Black Line’ employed by Governor Arthur to remove uncooperative aboriginals from settled areas had the desired effect and provided peace for the settlers and the remaining aboriginal population.

In the current day, the incident is called the ‘Black War’ and the National Museum of Australia infiltrated by left wing Marxists even calls indigenous murderers, “Tasmanian aboriginal resistance-fighters.”

Financial Benefits

Recent research showed a disproportionate growth in Australians identifying as aboriginal. Census results from 2016 provided an 18.8% growth in those identifying as aboriginal since the last census in 2011.

This growth is disproportionate in comparison to the 8.8%  population growth of the rest of Australia which includes births and immigration. In the state of Victoria under the Andrews Socialist rule, there was an increase of 25.8% in those identifying as aboriginal.

The racist policy that sees those deemed aboriginal as recipients of financial assistance, recipients of arts grants, recipients of university placements due to quota systems and recipients of jobs based on their race is the obvious catalyst for this growth. But few want to talk about it.

One man who does is Keith Windschuttle. In his book The Break Up Of Australia Windschuttle exposes government cowardice in his chapter ‘Unresolvable Issues of Aboriginal Identity’.

The Australian Government has a three conditions for those who wish to declare their aboriginal ancestry. There are: 1) be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, 2) identify as someone of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, and 3) be accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives.

But the truth is that no government institutions or other department dares question anybody who presents as aboriginal as inevitably the media is called in and you’re declared racist, bigoted, etc. This was highlighted in the Jack Charles case.

The ‘Stolen’ Generations

The Stolen Generations is now a state acknowledged affair that mythologically claims that from 1890 to 1970 or 1910 to 1970 – depending on what source you use – aboriginal children were systematically stolen from their noble and loving parents.

In Ronald Wilson’s Stolen Generations report from 1997, there were said to be “. . . about 100,000 stolen children.” In the 2008 when Kevin Rudd apologised on behalf of Australia (though the people were allowed no input) to the aboriginal people for the forcible removal of aboriginal children in the past, he said that there were up to 50,000 children removed. Hey what’s 50,000 between friends.

The facts that don’t get reported to your children in state schools are that very rarely, was a child removed without that individual’s welfare being the reason. It might do well for people to acknowledge that the same thing was done with white children too. If a child’s safety was at risk due to their biological parents being abusive, neglectful, or the parents financially incapable, they were removed and given to more capable and responsible people.

We are now living in a time where the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle exists. This policy recommends aboriginal children removed from their parents be placed into the care of other aboriginal parents. On principle it seems a well meaning policy but it shrinks the available options for children in need of care. The other issue now is that government departments are too scared to report and act on abusive aboriginal parents for fear of repeating a ‘stolen’ generations type situation.

The overwhelming theme of the aboriginal issue when listening to leftists is a ‘bigotry of low expectations’. The belief that Australian aboriginals are incapable of ‘self-determination’ is at the very root of their problems. But acknowledging that would mean the end of numerous industries propagated by an all too willing mainstream media and academia.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s