3 ms·
There's a phenomenon where people who know the least about a topic seem to make the most confident pronouncements. It betokens a sad lack of curiosity. Do even
by crispinb 7y ago
There's a phenomenon where people who know the least about a topic seem to make the most confident pronouncements. It betokens a sad lack of curiosity.
Do even 10 minutes of reading and you'll find out that there are many cases of scientists & ethnographers in Australia corroborating traditional story details over thousands of years. Another 5 minutes and you'll find, again, cases where indigenous elders have traversed country they've never been in before, and gone straight to the only water sources existing in hundreds of surrounding square kilometers. All based on traditional stories. Probe a little further and you'll find out that much (though not all) is known about the cultural technologies that have been used to keep the stories alive and accurate over multiple generations.
Indigenous Australians aren't a 'different species'. But they do represent a distinct civilisation, which has thrived all the way across a continent for 40-60,000 years. Part of how they have done this is by maintaining stories about the land. This has little in common with industrial era unsubstantiated superstitions about indigenous peoples' 'oral stories'.
- flukus 7y agoWith 10 minutes of reading (and I suspect anything less than many years of study) I can't find out what the hit rate is. How many stories do they have? How many describe verifiable events? A single story that happens to correlate to a verifiable event is just cherry picking and doesn't prove anything. And from what I've read from other similar articles they just cherry pick a single story, correlate and call it proof.