Skip to main content

I see there is a lot of talk on these boards about establishing a relationship between Western Blacks and African Blacks, but I never hear about the Aborigines of Australia. They are desendents of African who were slaughtered by the thousands at the hands of Europeans and still struggle for equal rights and reparations today. When there are talks of the African struggle have they been forgotten?
Original Post
Where did you get this information that the Australian Aborigines come from Africa? if they did which part of Africa did they come from?

Australian Aborigines look more like the people from the Indian sub continent and closely resemble other Asian black people like the people of Papua New Guinea. In build, stature and looks they look completely different from the average African who is strongly built, muscular and athletic. You can not put the same description on Asain black people or the Australian Aborigines.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/index_nation.html
I have read theories that the Aboriginal Austrailians migrated from the Indian sub-continent as well as Africa. Some of them do have African features with kinky hair and broad noses looking like the South African bushmen and others do look like the dark skinned people of India.
Any way they are considered black by the Europeans and are treated in the same manner Blacks are treated through out the world.
I see. The only difference is if we go with your original post the link between Africans and blacks across the Atlantic is very clear, very recent and traceable. Africa is the motherland of all black people across the Atlantic and every black person across the Atlantic was stolen from the motherland, this means the two peoples are blood relatives. This also means all the wealth and riches of Africa still belong to these ones as well as to the Africans. On the other hand any link between Australian Aborigines and Africa is more to do with guesswork and theories that abound all over the place, nothing from Africa can be linked to them.

For your information there are black people that live in India up to today and they are treated abominably by the Indian population but I can assure you they will be the first to tell you they are not black people of African origin. The same can be said for black people in Saudi Arabia, Iraqe and other countries in the Middle East.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/index_nation.html
Where did you get this information that the Australian Aborigines come from Africa?



Whether they identify as African origin or not they share a similar experience to Native American Indians, and black-Africans regarding European colonizers. They also share similar experiences with black Americans in that they are the poorest, unhealthiest; least employed, worst housed and most imprisoned Australians. In other words, they suffer hardship, and are discriminated against based on the color of their skin. Further, some Aborigines identify with other black people in the Diaspora. For those who do I embrace them as brothers and sisters.

Aboriginal Origins

Excerpts:

"They also knew that, since the nineteenth century, there had been a number of theories about the origins of the Aborigines and the migration of ancient peoples to the Australian continent. In 1927, in his book, Environment and Race, the controversial Sydney geographer, Griffith Taylor, had speculated that several waves of Aboriginal migrants had swept before them an even older "Negrito" race. [8] Maybe these rainforest people held the key to the story."

Genetics: The Sydney school has long been convinced that genetic studies also support the notion of an homogenous population. Larnach wrote in 1974 that, as a result of new genetic research: "We therefore have no hesitation in omitting Negritos as ancestors of the Australian Aborigines."
I don't have anything to add to the discussion on "origin." Although I have heard that Australian organizations have begun an outreach to African American organizations.

I am posting because my inspiration for creating a flag for African American. in addition to and beyond the flag of the African Diaspora, came from the Australian athlete in the Olympics taking her victory lap carrying the flag of Aboriginal Australians.

It was the "bright light" for me.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Well one fact remains, is that a lot of Aborigines consider themselves to be black. I was made aware of the Aborigines' existence in a weird from watching MTV's reality show Road Rules Australia, one of the RR participants, a black American man, discussed his emotional attachment to the Aborigines b/c of their plight in Australia and his own disconnect to his majority white group. There is also a movie that was screened at Robert DeNiro's Tribeca Film Festival (I never saw it but read about it) by a young Australian woman entitled "Black Chicks Talking." I'd refer to her as Aborigine but I choose to refrain b/c I believe there are two groups (?) that consider themselves black in Australia and I don't think she's Aborigine. Her film (documentary) followed "black" women in Australia and their experiences.

There's even a huge hip hop scene among the Aborigine youths who seem to have a deep connection to Black Americans. I did a lot of searching two years ago for Aborigine sites and it was so enlightening. Seeing photos of them break dancing, graffiti tagging and engaging in other hip hop specific aesthetics was just great. I believe there is at least one Aborigine MB online as well. I just think it's unfair if anyone tries to shut out groups that really/genuinely want to connect and create a force. So they deserve our support.

"Show me someone or something that has not been scrutinized and I'll show you the wind and even the wind has received its fair share of questions." It's inevitable, if you're here they want to know why- just ask animals, gravity, molecules and/or the moon."

-Babette Thomas
Many would like to "go home." Many do not know where home is. Some know where home is, but don't know how to get there. It is almost certain that if you could find home, those there would not know who you are. And might not want you there. They certainly would call you something different from themselves.

There is a certain "safety" in calling ourselves "African." African, without doubt, is our ancestry. "Black" is very provincial. "Black" is not distinguishing. There are people all over the world who call themselves "black", or are called "black" by others.

Interestingly, "lilfoxybroun" notes there are, at least, two groups of "blacks" in Australia. This "color" thing seems to be everywhere. And apparently it is.

As I stated in an earlier post to this thread, the great Australian Olympic athlete was the inspiration for me to seek a design for a flag specific to African America.

It should be noted that the "African Disapora" does not,and in fact, cannot include Australia. The African Diaspora refers specifically to those millions who were separated from Africa AGAINST THEIR WILL. Typically duriing the period 1440 to 1860.

The lack of specificity, the ubiquituous nature, of the term "black" clearly establishes its uselessness for identity. The Australian Example, the Arab Example, the Indian Example, the Papua Example all give evidence of the inadequacy of the term as an identity.

This reinforces my confidence in having made the right choice of African America as my ancestral nationality.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on October 22, 2003 at 05:15 AM.]
James,

That's truly interesting that you'd say that. I mean of course race has been made inconclusive by scientists due to the exact reasons you pointed out. But I actually see Black through a cultural lens and not through a racial lens. I think my reason for using/accepting Black is because it is open enough to include people of other ethniticies who are ambiguous about the title African-American. But I guess you are right the term is broad and is either being used "wrongly" or being imposed, which I became aware of while watching a report on Scotland. The report was making a case as to why Scotland was a great place to live but then it got to culture/race/racism and Scottish immigrant groups such as Iraqis described being called "black" by their white Scottish counterparts among other things.

However I am of Haitian descent and I of course know that Haiti is a part of the African Diaspora but here how can I work those terms out to include all of that? I've already started to describe myself as a black Haitian-American. Both Black and American refer to my double cosciousness as an American and of course Haitian includes my ancestry. I don't know I guess I'm attempting to simplify something too complex. But I'd at least like to say if anything Black (African) American is a culture, a culture within a culture. Black Americans have a history, art, music, language specific to Black Americans just like any other culture-Italian, Japanese, etc. It's too complex!

"Show me someone or something that has not been scrutinized and I'll show you the wind and even the wind has received its fair share of questions." It's inevitable, if you're here they want to know why- just ask animals, gravity, molecules and/or the moon."

-Babette Thomas
"I've already started to describe myself as a black Haitian-American. Both Black and American refer to my double cosciousness as an American and of course Haitian includes my ancestry." -- lilfoxybrownintellectual

I read your post again today. I felt proud for you identifying yourself as Haitian-American. That is what it should be. I think, in my opinion, it is sufficient for all of your identity. No one should have to "explain themselves" to be valid in the eyes of others.

The fact that you are "black" is the most incidental of all that you are.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
If we reach out in support to Australian Aboriginies, it is because we share a history of oppression but not because we are related. Aboriginies, the negritos of southeast Asia, and various peoples of the Indian subcontinent are not dark skinned and curly haired because we are closely related. Africans are actually more closely related to everyone else than they are to Aboriginies, based on the genetic research of Cavalli-Sforsa et al, and Aboriginies are most closely related to other Asians (though distantly) than anyone else.

There are also groups of people in Southern India who are attempting to relate their struggle against classism with our progressive success against racism in this country on the basis that we are related. The problem is that we are not related (and genetics has shown this), and they are far more closely related to their paler northern countrymen, and to Asians and Europeans, than they are to our ancestors in Africa. But none of which means we are not brothers in struggle or that they should not learn from our victories and defeats, and it certainly shouldn't keep us from reaching out to them and supporting them as much as we can.

Our separate ancestries should never lessen any bond we share with these or any other people. Support for victims of oppression should unite us universally whether we are kin or not.

d.
OK djonmaila, speaking of Southern Asians, Indians in particular, I was under the impression that they were descendants of two black skinned groups, Dravidians and East Africans. Dravidians, a black skinned people, were the original peoples of India before the Indo-Europeans came down and conquered India. The East Africans were brought to the Indian sub-continent through the Arab slave trade.
As far as the religion of Hindu that segregates based on caste, you will see that there are many, many black skinned people in the lowest castes of Dahlits.
We should support their struggle based on their history of oppression.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
I used to think so, too. but genetic research has shown us that we are very distantly related. I am copying part of a post I posted on swagga a few months ago that addresses your question. The second link is a personal favorite. It shows color is not a function of what we call race. And as I said before, and I think we agree, our support of any oppressed people should remain unwavered regardless of whether we call them kin or not.

"Despite the difficulties, the scientists made some myth-shattering discoveries. One of them jumps right off the book's cover: a color map of world genetic variation has Africa on one end of the spectrum and Australia on the other. Because Australia's aborigines and sub-Saharan Africans share such superficial traits as skin color and body shape, they were widely assumed to be closely related. But their genes tell a different story. Of all humans, Australians are most distant from the Africans and most closely resemble their neighbors, the southeast Asians."

http://www.2think.org/cavalli-sforza.shtml

The book referred to in the above quote is "The History and Geography of Human Genes" by my favorite geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza. You should also check out the book "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. There are excellent pics of Asians, Australians, Papuans, etc. in that one. The conclusions drawn in both books stem from research done on mitochondrial DNA. This is also the research that supports the "Out of Africa" theory. Also, this next link explains why Austalians can have dark skin as an adaptation and still be closer to Asians:

"Race: A Manmade Grouping
One of the important implications of Jablonski and Chaplin's work is that it underlines the concept of race as purely a social construct, with no scientific grounds. DNA research has shown that genetically all humans, regardless of skin color and other surface distinctions, are basically the same. In an April 2001 article titled, "The Genetic Archaeology of Race," published in the Atlantic Monthly, Steve Olson writes "the genetic variants affecting skin color and facial features are essentially meaningless "”they probably involve a few hundred of the billions of nucleotides in a person's DNA. Yet societies have built elaborate systems of privilege and control on these insignificant genetic differences."

Lovely pic at this link:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0211/feature2/online_extra.html

d.
Nice try, folks... in trying to stack the worldwide racial deck against whitey. But I happen to have spent a couple of years in Australia, the better part of it in western area of the country. Got to know a good number of aborigines, or "koori," as they call themselves. When I ventured to mention possible "African roots" to a koori friend, I'd usually be met with a torrent of obscenities and invective - including the infamous "n" word and references to certain people eating monkey body parts!

Sorry, but the koori are adamant: Their ancestors originated in one land and one land only. Their native land: Australia.
Egbert,
though you may have been to australia, it's apparent you haven't spoken with a wide range of american black people or else you would know that many african-americans have been led to believe that they too "are not african-have never been to africa-believe themselves american rather than african-have nothing in common with africans". Sorry, but your anecdotal conversation with a few aborigines is rather moot.
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
I happen to have spent a couple of years in Australia, the better part of it in western area of the country. Got to know a good number of aborigines, or "koori," as they call themselves. When I ventured to mention possible "African roots" to a koori friend, I'd usually be met with a torrent of obscenities and invective - including the infamous "n" word and references to certain people eating monkey body parts!

Sorry, but the koori are adamant: Their ancestors originated in one land and one land only. Their native land: Australia.
Gee thanks for this info. I wonder how they came to this conclusion about Africa? It would not be due to stereotypical bull crap fed to them by your ilk would it?

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
I tend to go by the genetic studies. The aborigines are not part of the African diaspora. The use of the word "black" is irrelevant. It makes just as much sense to call them black as to call Africans black, because they're darkskinned. But if we're interested in being correct here, there are two very light skinned races, that we don't consider to be the same. It shouldn't take a grand leap to see Aborigines and Africoids as different races. But we still can be united with them in a common struggle.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I tend to go by the genetic studies. The aborigines are not part of the African diaspora. The use of the word "black" is irrelevant. It makes just as much sense to call them black as to call Africans black, because they're darkskinned. But if we're interested in being correct here, there are two very light skinned races, that we don't consider to be the same. It shouldn't take a grand leap to see Aborigines and Africoids as different races. But we still can be united with them in a common struggle.


Get your shyt together Mr. Gentic study.. lol

Out of Africa

Most researchers accept a theory referred to as "Out of Africa." It holds that numerous species of hominids beginning with Homo erectus began migrating out of Africa almost 2 million years ago and evolved into several species. Then a new species called Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and migrated between 100,000 and120,000 years ago to Europe, Asia, and Australia, consigning all the earlier hominids it encountered to extinction.

February 9, 2000
News

Australian National University scientists reported yesterday their dating studies estimated the skeleton at between 56,000 and 68,000 years old and the sediment it is buried in at between 59,000 and 63,000 years. Research leader Dr Alan Thorne interpreted the dates to argue that humans migrated to Australia in two separate waves.The two scientists agree with the Out of Africa theory that Homo erectus began in Africa about 2 million years ago, and emigrated.
Genetic evidence

Investigation of the patterns of genetic variation in modern human populations supports the view that the origin of Homo sapiens is the result of a recent event that is consistent with the Out of Africa Model.
Studies of contemporary DNA, especially mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which occurs only in the cellular organelles called mitochondria, reveal that humans are astonishingly homogeneous, with relatively little genetic variation.1,5
The high degree of similarity between human populations stands in strong contrast to the condition seen in our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.2 In fact, there is significantly more genetic variation between two individual chimpanzees drawn from the same population than there is between two humans drawn randomly from a single population. Furthermore, genetic variation between populations of chimpanzees is enormously greater than differences between European, Asian and African human populations.
In support of an African origin for Homo sapiens the work of Cann and Wilson1 has demonstrated that the highest level of genetic variation in mtDNA occurs in African populations. This implies that Homo sapiens arose first in Africa and has therefore had a longer period of time to accumulate genetic diversity. Using the genetic distance between African populations and others as a measure of time, they furthermore suggested that Homo sapiens arose between 100,000 and 400,000 years ago in Africa.
The low amount of genetic variation in modern human populations suggests that our origins may reflect a relatively small founding population for Homo sapiens. Analysis of mtDNA by Rogers and Harpending12 supports the view that a small population of Homo sapiens, numbering perhaps only 10,000 to 50,000 people, left Africa somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.
Scientists recently succeeded in extracting DNA from several Neanderthal skeletons.8 After careful analysis of particularly the mtDNA, but now also some nuclear DNA, it is apparent that Neanderthal DNA is very distinct from our own. In assessing the degree of difference between DNA in Neanderthals and modern humans, the authors suggest that these two lineages have been separated for more than 400,000 years.
Although in its infancy, such genetic studies support the view that Neanderthals did not interbreed with Homo sapiens who migrated into Europe. It is, therefore, highly likely that modern humans do not carry Neanderthal genes in their DNA.
why? what cultural ties have we to australian aborigines other than darker skin?

afro-americans have more in common with afro-latinos/caribbeans, and, yet, we still look to discover faint commonalities with africans. even afro-canadians have to be among the most forgotten lot of our family.

dubois (w.e.b) should have his arse buried in haiti, not ghana!

[This message was edited by afro_geek on December 17, 2003 at 10:25 AM.]
It's always the same thing when you say "black or African" ignorant people are offended like it's an insult. Its unfortunate that Black Aboriginals of Australia, Malaysian and Black Middle Eastern won't realize that they have more in common with people in African countries than the European or Semitic people, but there is no way to change all their minds. I just think that it's sad.

AfroMan.


quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
Nice try, folks... in trying to stack the worldwide racial deck against whitey. But I happen to have spent a couple of years in Australia, the better part of it in western area of the country. Got to know a good number of aborigines, or "koori," as they call themselves. When I ventured to mention possible "African roots" to a koori friend, I'd usually be met with a torrent of obscenities and invective - including the infamous "n" word and references to certain people eating monkey body parts!

Sorry, but the koori are adamant: Their ancestors originated in one land and one land only. Their native land: Australia.

----------------------------------------------
I have never considered Aborigines to be African.It truly fustrates me when people do that.African Americans/African are African. Its Sad that people won't read a book about genetics. I have nothing against anyone, but this thinking that everyone with dark skin is black/African Where Africans!
Last edited {1}
aborigine: "ab"-, from; "orgine", beginning. They are 'not' pure africans (lol, neither am I for that matter!) because of their cross breed with another culture.

However, your statements are valid and worthy of discussion...

The European, who 'are' barbaric by nature have raped, ramsacked, distorted and plummaged every single dark skinned culture that they've come across since quit crawling around on all four and stood up erect.

Aborigines 'are' truly an important part of historical investigation, discussion, and intellectual consideration as 'is' any other cultural group in the world.

Fine
aborigine: "ab"-, from; "orgine", beginning. They are 'not' pure africans (lol, neither am I for that matter!) because of their cross breed with another culture.
------------------------------------------------
They are not Africans period. They are like East indians/Dravidans, they are from Asia there are many people in sri-lanka and indian who look like australian natives.
Ethiopians and Eritreans are not pure Africans,but they still have 60% negroid blood.

Look:
East Asians


Not pure,Australian Natives


------------------------------------------------

Not pure,East Africans Ethiopians,Somalians


Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×