4 ms·

>The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people. It would be impossible to determine the orig

>The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people. It would be impossible to determine the original owners. Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc. We shouldn't just give land back to the previous owners when they stole it from others.

defrost 3y ago
> Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc. False. There are, in fact, actual OG land owners who are first people: Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 Note that this is sound genetic evidence that post dates Quadrant literary opinions that waffle on about circulating patterns and waves of takeover. When the Sahul paleocontinent was first settled by humans they arrived, spread out, and more or less stayed where they stopped moving.
- TyroneBlack 3y ago
  I don't have access to the paper so I can't read it. There are a few problems though. One, we don't know for sure that the aboriginals were the first in Australia. It is possible a tribe made it to Australia and were attacked by the present day aboriginals who came later. Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that? Second, it seems like you are suggesting that no aboriginal tribe ever attacked another tribe and took their land. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, because that has never happened anywhere else in the world. Even if you posted is accurate, which there is no proof of, it would be an exception that proves the rule.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > I don't have access to the paper so I can't read it. Weird - anyone that routinely reads actual science papers knows how to access them: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416 > Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that? There's an entire body of work on human diaspora from first origins, it's been making great strides in recent decades with DNA comparisons dating movements by degree of change over time - that'd be a good place to start your study. > because that has never happened anywhere else in the world. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, can you back that up? Good luck in furthering your education and best wishes to you MrShoelaces.
    - TyroneBlack 3y ago
      We might be talking past each other. I'm not talking about first origins. I don't care where a tribe originally came from. I skimmed your paper and don't think it disproved anything I said. Let's take this simple scenario. There is some uninhabited land. Nobody has ever lived on the land before. A tribe ends up moving to the area. Something happens and the tribe decides to split into two. The land is also split. A short time later (prior to any DNA changes) one tribe attacks the other and takes the other tribe's land. The idea that DNA can prove that never happened of that is utterly ridiculous. I skimmed through the paper and it didn't suggest that it could. Please point to the page where it says DNA can prove a tribe never attacked another tribe.

defrost 3y ago

> Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc. False. There are, in fact, actual OG land owners who are first people: Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 Note that this is sound genetic evidence that post dates Quadrant literary opinions that waffle on about circulating patterns and waves of takeover. When the Sahul paleocontinent was first settled by humans they arrived, spread out, and more or less stayed where they stopped moving.

TyroneBlack 3y ago
I don't have access to the paper so I can't read it. There are a few problems though. One, we don't know for sure that the aboriginals were the first in Australia. It is possible a tribe made it to Australia and were attacked by the present day aboriginals who came later. Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that? Second, it seems like you are suggesting that no aboriginal tribe ever attacked another tribe and took their land. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, because that has never happened anywhere else in the world. Even if you posted is accurate, which there is no proof of, it would be an exception that proves the rule.
- defrost 3y ago
  > I don't have access to the paper so I can't read it. Weird - anyone that routinely reads actual science papers knows how to access them: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416 > Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that? There's an entire body of work on human diaspora from first origins, it's been making great strides in recent decades with DNA comparisons dating movements by degree of change over time - that'd be a good place to start your study. > because that has never happened anywhere else in the world. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, can you back that up? Good luck in furthering your education and best wishes to you MrShoelaces.
  - TyroneBlack 3y ago
    We might be talking past each other. I'm not talking about first origins. I don't care where a tribe originally came from. I skimmed your paper and don't think it disproved anything I said. Let's take this simple scenario. There is some uninhabited land. Nobody has ever lived on the land before. A tribe ends up moving to the area. Something happens and the tribe decides to split into two. The land is also split. A short time later (prior to any DNA changes) one tribe attacks the other and takes the other tribe's land. The idea that DNA can prove that never happened of that is utterly ridiculous. I skimmed through the paper and it didn't suggest that it could. Please point to the page where it says DNA can prove a tribe never attacked another tribe.