Why didn't Australian Aborigines have buildings, roads, written languages, mechanical devices and ships?

Why didn't Australian Aborigines have buildings, roads, written languages, mechanical devices and ships?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A small community has little opportunity to develop and mutate: it is difficult to have a broad spectrum of intelligence and therefore innovation when the pool itself is not broad.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >have a broad spectrum of intelligence
      What are the benefits of having more low IQ individuals instead of just high IQ ones?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is easier to trick low IQ individuals to do the things which don't serve their personal self-interests, but which benefit society overall.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Societal benefit is in their personal self-interest, harmful disobedience is a misalignment of instincts and misjudgement of conditions which is in part a failure of intelligence. I don't think Japan or China, for example, have historically suffered from high intelligence in these regards.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          high IQ people tend to be less stable, low IQ people are great when agriculture is invented because they are much more content to do what they are told and trust to be looked after.

          israelites are high IQ and bicker a lot between thesmelves but they still developed a common conscience and are united enough to have their own country.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        high IQ people tend to be less stable, low IQ people are great when agriculture is invented because they are much more content to do what they are told and trust to be looked after.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are worthless negrito chimps, barely above monkeys.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You know abos are somewhat related to Europeans? both are paleo-africans and both have neanderthal/denisovan admixture.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How related? Because we're somewhat related to chimps, fish and bacteria as well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          All paleo-africans, the difference is Europeans have changed a lot where'as abos haven't changed much.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >All paleo-africans, the difference is Europeans have changed a lot where'as abos haven't changed much.
            Blacks did change. They are much less robust now similarly to Europeans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They’re far less neotenous than every other race bar Abos and maybe Dravidians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If we're talking congoids, they have no nose bridge or brow ridge to speak of. They have gracial features, especially Bantus. Only face frame remains wide, everything else is childlike.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        abos were isolated from humans for 60,000 years. they are so genetically distinct that they are probably a different species, basically zoo fauna. Their closest cousins are negrito pacific chimps and AASI dravidian darktroon apes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >they are so genetically distinct
          nope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The first complete sequences of the Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australian men have revealed a deep indigenous genetic history tracing all the way back to the initial settlement of the continent 50 thousand years ago, according to a study published in the journal Current Biology today (25th February 2016).

            >The study by researchers from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and collaborators at La Trobe University in Melbourne and several other Australian institutes, challenges a previous theory that suggested an influx of people from India into Australia around 4-5 thousand years ago. This new DNA sequencing study focused on the Y chromosome, which is transmitted only from father to son, and found no support for such a prehistoric migration. The results instead show a long and independent genetic history in Australia.

            >Modern humans arrived in Australia about 50 thousand years ago, forming the ancestors of present-day Aboriginal Australians. They were amongst the earliest settlers outside Africa. They arrived in an ancient continent made up of today's Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea, called Sahul, probably thousands of years before modern humans arrived in Europe.

            The only thing they are close to are little negrito chimps and pajeets maybe. other than that, they are zoo fauna

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They were amongst the earliest settlers outside Africa.
            So still part of the many migration cycles of humans outside of Africa. Why are you trying to project your racial zoomie autism onto everything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The study by researchers from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and collaborators at La Trobe University in Melbourne and several other Australian institutes, challenges a previous theory that suggested an influx of people from India into Australia around 4-5 thousand years ago. This new DNA sequencing study focused on the Y chromosome, which is transmitted only from father to son, and found no support for such a prehistoric migration. The results instead show a long and independent genetic history in Australia.
            and the clincher:
            >Lesley Williams, who was responsible for the liaison with the Aboriginal community, said: "As an Aboriginal Elder and cultural consultant for this project I am delighted, although not surprised, that science has confirmed what our ancestors have taught us over many generations, that we have lived here since the Dreaming."
            This is a bugbear of Australian anthropology. You better come out with what the abos want politically or you will get no further cooperation or funding. This is the kind of shit why you had Dark Emu manage to go out unchallenged for so long.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The study by researchers from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and collaborators at La Trobe University in Melbourne and several other Australian institutes, challenges a previous theory that suggested an influx of people from India into Australia around 4-5 thousand years ago. This new DNA sequencing study focused on the Y chromosome, which is transmitted only from father to son, and found no support for such a prehistoric migration. The results instead show a long and independent genetic history in Australia.
            and the clincher:
            >Lesley Williams, who was responsible for the liaison with the Aboriginal community, said: "As an Aboriginal Elder and cultural consultant for this project I am delighted, although not surprised, that science has confirmed what our ancestors have taught us over many generations, that we have lived here since the Dreaming."
            This is a bugbear of Australian anthropology. You better come out with what the abos want politically or you will get no further cooperation or funding. This is the kind of shit why you had Dark Emu manage to go out unchallenged for so long.

            >Lesley Williams, who was responsible for the liaison with the Aboriginal community, said: "As an Aboriginal Elder and cultural consultant for this project I am delighted, although not surprised, that science has confirmed what our ancestors have taught us over many generations, that we have lived here since the Dreaming."
            forgot this

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is the Dreaming?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            basically their creation myths. Most people don't realise the DNA and anthropological study have no meaning to them unless they can use it to argue to get something. They truly believe a giant snake carved out the valley they may be in and they owned an entire continent that not one of them would never have been able to cross in one lifetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dreaming

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I find it odd that Aboriginals across all of Australia, a huge place, would have a coherent aesthetic and lore centered around "dreaming" and the rainbow serpent and whatever, which is really wacky and distinctive. It seems more like the work of a fantasy writer than cultural patterns anywhere else. Are we sure this is real?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Their closest cousins are negrito pacific chimps and AASI dravidian darktroon apes
          Yeah and all those groups are related to asians and europeans, we all came from a common out of africa source.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            model negrito_chimp_hijra on g25 against Russia_Belgorod_CWC_Aryan or Germany_Hamburg_Aryan and check the distances.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you want him to search up your haplotism?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >they are so genetically distinct that they are probably a different species,
          I really feel like this is a distinct possibility and I lean towards believing it. But it's so unPC we will never get serious scholarship to weigh in on how true it could be. I'm very curious how plausible it is really.

          BS tavern talk theory. That's why most abos look so ugly to "us". Our genetics recognizes certain things are "wrong" and it's not very compatible. It's similar to looking at a "sexy" chimp.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            abos were isolated from humans for 60,000 years. they are so genetically distinct that they are probably a different species, basically zoo fauna. Their closest cousins are negrito pacific chimps and AASI dravidian darktroon apes.

            It takes way way more than 60k years for things to speciatate. Do recall the Ostritch and the Somali Ostrich are two different species yet look very alike and only was discovered to be of a different species very very recently.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            truly so. Abos came from a founder effect of some humans who left Africa and traveled along the coast probably until they reached Australia some 60,000 years ago. Its well known that even the seafaring austronesians didnt leave any mark on australia so abos basically live in isolation for thousands of years. Meanwhile, new mutations and genetic shifts were creating lots of genetic diversity in asia, europe, even africa.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe not a completely separate species but I lean towards this as well. I was reading a book about the theory of the origin of complex human language and most mathematical calculations are basically incompatible with the dating of Aboriginals becoming genetically isolated because it happened so long ago. Basically some linguists calculated a date when it was likely for complex human speech and the requisite thought capacity to have originated and were like "oh actually this can't be true because our theorized date is 10k years after Aboriginals colonized Australia and got cut off from the rest of humanity. Because they must have the exact same linguistic and rational capacity as us, this must be impossible."
            Imagine we found an island tomorrow with honest to god Neanderthals or Denisovans living on it; do you honestly think the scientific community and media would consider them a separate species or subspecies?? Probably not because that would be too racist and un-PC, they would get described and portrayed in the exact same way as Aboriginals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In school we had it rammed in our heads that they had been here 65kya. Then later we learned in science class that humans left Africa 50kya.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >abos were isolated from humans for 60,000 years.
          Nope. Big migration 4K years ago. Upgraded their technology and left a shitl;oad of YDNA

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What Y-DNA do they have other than C?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >negrito pacific chimps
          >AASI dravidian darktroon apes
          fricking darktroon apes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So everyone on the planet is paleo-African and has ancient admixture then.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >both have neanderthal/denisovan admixture.
        doesnt mean shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        does this moron subscribe to the 'out-of-africa' theory? How did buildingless, zero innovation Black folk get to australia then?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's science anon you're acting like a afrocentrist right now denying facts and evidence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is "science"? the out-of-africa theory? It's a theory, and one largely subscribed to but the multiple origins theory is as good or better.
            >denying le facts and le evidence
            just like the vax as 100% safe and effective right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Scientific theories are not the same as theory in a colloquial sense moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            does this moron subscribe to the 'out-of-africa' theory? How did buildingless, zero innovation Black folk get to australia then?

            Anon, the out-of-africa theory desfribes exactly why Africa developed the way that it did. You don't even need to be a scientist to see this. Humans left Africa by moving north across the Eastern Seaboard through the horn of Africa and then into the Nile, Middle East and so on, and if we look at the oldest civilizations and archeological sites, we see very clearly that it matches this migration pattern.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Interestingly they did actually have sailing craft in the Arnhem land which is probably a remnant of the migration from India 4000 years ago.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek more like copied from the recent Makassan visitors

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they didn-t need to create any technology, they lived well like that and had no enemy so they didn-t have to create better weapons either. This happens to all isolated peoples. Consstant competition and war is what makes people want to improve their tech all the time to be able to beat your enemies. If you don-t have enemies or they use the same weappons you have and you get all your food from nature... people don-t feel the need to improve technology. Europe developed so much because they were constantly in war with each other and other peoples from Asia. The chinese the same.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How could this hypothesis be falsified?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By demonstrating an innovative insular population

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why don't we have flying cars?
    yeah same reason

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm curious of who the smartest abo in recorded history might have been. And I mean, genuine, full-blooded, 100% abo. Not clowns like picrel. Does anyone know of any individual examples that might be contenders?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The guy who has been on our $50 note since the 90s.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Unaipon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >inventions
        >perpetual motion machine
        >anti-gravitational device
        lmao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Ngunaitponi
        What's with inferior hominidis and this initial Ngu- phoneme? But this is hilarious, this guy did nothing of note and gets featured on the dollar purely because he was still the most important Abbo of all time. This is more embarrassing for their race than anything.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you hate abos so much? I'm pretty racist but this level of hate and dehumanisation is actually disgusting me. Abos are actually pretty decent people in my experience unlike Black folk in America

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I just made one unexceptional post, what do you mean? I "hate" many other ethnicities more than Abbos, they are just an amusing novelty of no importance.

            >Poltard is too dumb to understand linguistics hur it's just cause dey apes

            What, then, is the linguistic reason that the first part of this Abbo name coincidentally resembles Bantu languages, thereby evoking amusement?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >first part of this Abbo name coincidentally resembles Bantu languages, thereby evoking amusement?
            >Bantu
            Holy jesus you are stupid. Aboriginal languages are actually theoretically most closely related to Dravidian languages, abos have nothing to do with modern Africans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Aboriginal languages are not, in linguistic terms, related to any other, not even all to each other. I postulated no relationship between Abbos and Bantus and your reading comprehension is abysmal.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.latrobe.edu.au/crld/research/australian-and-dravidian-languages
            Dravidian like people migrated to Australia four thousand years ago brining the dingo

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is no linguistic connection between Aboriginal languages and any other; furthermore, the presence of Abbo-like admixture in South India has no linguistic implications, as Dravidian languages were brought to India by Iranian farmers lacking this admixture. Andamanese languages could be distantly related, but do not qualify for a linguistic relationship.
            Your link contains no article and its premise is false.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >in my experience
            I hate the poltard shit too but many, many people have close experience and are fricking sick of them, especially in recent years. A lot of people I have met that claim that they are wonderful have only met the old tame ones out to do a paid Welcome to Country or other entertainment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I'm sick of their constant whining but honestly it's just my experience, in Adelaide abos are chill in my experience. When I went up to cairns it was a whole different story and I here they are basically like American Black folk in Alice springs and Darwin. I've met countless abos at pubs, clubs, volunteering, collage and they have always been cool people with interesting stories to tell. Like a few talked about how they hunted crocs in Queensland real crocodile Dundee stuff. Yeah they aren't the brightest bunch but they cool people regardless atleast to me.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Poltard is too dumb to understand linguistics hur it's just cause dey apes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >only actual invention listed is, supposedly, a new type of shears, the only source listed to back up the claim that modern shears are all based on his design is some book by a random aboboo author 50 years ago, zero concrete descriptions of the design or references pointing to such descriptions
        >boomerang helicopter
        lmao thank you for sharing this, never knew who this was or why his face was on the $50

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >In late 2008, Aboriginal activist Allan "Chirpy" Campbell, a great-nephew of David Unaipon, failed in an attempt to negotiate a settlement with the Reserve Bank of Australia for using an image of Unaipon on the banknote without the permission of the family
        kek

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/RRGzXR0.jpg

      These aren't abos

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they lived as God intended

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >mechanical devices

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >buildings
    They had stone buildings with multiple rooms

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      stacking rocks five high in a circle is just amazing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      some of them had building.

      The truth is that whilst some abos were not a unified group. some were just about able to stack some rock but other hadn't even mastered the throwing stick. Look into Aboringinal language families to see how isolated each group was from one another. it's actually a puzzle why the languages of Australia are so divergent, considering that they must all originate from a few initial migrants.

      Tasmanians and northern Australians didn't invent the boomerang, bow and arrow or the sling, making them the only humans on the planet to not develop pass the spear, in regards to ranged weaponry.

      If anything it's impressive how they managed to survive with such low tech.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's actually a puzzle why the languages of Australia are so divergent, considering that they must all originate from a few initial migrants.
        It's just time, there are much worse cases. Australia is a big place and they were local HGs for tens of thousands of years, if anything I'm shocked they can be summarised into two language groups and not hundreds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it is not really a mystery since they arrived 50000 years ago and were separated by a huge desert

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >main difference between successful abos and unsuccessful ones is whether they could throw a stick or not
        You cant make this shit up lmao. Even octopus are more impressive than these baboons

        >it's actually a puzzle why the languages of Australia are so divergent, considering that they must all originate from a few initial migrants.
        It's just time, there are much worse cases. Australia is a big place and they were local HGs for tens of thousands of years, if anything I'm shocked they can be summarised into two language groups and not hundreds

        Abo language was just chimp speak. Sorta how in nature documentaries on monkey societies and how they try to deceipher what the apes are saying.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lack of fertile land for agriculture to kickstart civilization and lack of contact with peoples through trade to develop other means of forming civilizations. Look how many times civilization arose largely or entirely independently
    >Nile valley
    >Tigris and Euphrates
    >Indus River
    >Yangtze and Yellow Rivers
    >Valleys of Central and Eastern Mexico
    >Andes

    The Andes are impressive but moreover this illustrates a trend that forming civilization initially is difficult, especially if you don't conveniently live on the banks of a fertile river prone to seasonal flooding. Euros were just lucky that they lived in an area that was both generally fertile (France, Po valley, and Ukraine are some of the most fertile regions on earth despite memes about "muh harsh Europe") and had relatively easy access of trade directly or indirectly with founding sources of civilization.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a lot of cope in a single post my man.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also it was a lot less harsh several times in prehistory since they arrived

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Lack of fertile land for agriculture to kickstart civilization and lack of contact with peoples through trade to develop other means of forming civilizations. Look how many times civilization arose largely or entirely independently
      >There are no rivers in Australia.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a bit of an ahistorical list and outdated list.
      Sure the 'Great' civs of the past were all on fertile flood plains but they weren't the first, just the ones with the most growth potential.

      >Gobekli tepe and the surrounding tels were in a fairly dry grassy, hilly terrain.
      >Sintashta culture. invented chariots, lived in barren sub siberian russia.
      >anti-pre pottery Jericho wasn't located by an major river but it was clearly one of the worlds first urban centres.

      could argue that the ancient proto-hellenic civs developed without much in the way of fertile flood plains.

      Obviously it helps but civs have developed in all sorts of terrain, from the barren steppes, to the arabian desert, to the mesoamerican jungles, to the islands of the pacific. terrain is only part of the answer

Comments are closed.