Quote:
- Dear me, genocide everywhere but Arnhem land, due to learning??? something from muslims.
That must be one mighty impressive thesis.
I wonder if the good doctor placed any probability on the fact that europeans  of the 18th and 19th centuries would have considered arnhem land pretty worthless, so would not have cared who lived there?

I really hate made up history, where people take incredibly minor events and try to attach an importance to them that just never existed.
Cameleers??, yep no doubt about it, without them we would all be living under some rock.

Karnal wrote on May 28^th, 2012 at 11:44pm:



Hey, PB, you are the Paki Bvgger with the cravat and the gold tooth from Bradford Poly's School of Post-colonian studies (marxist-leninist). Remember? 

mozzaok wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 11:26am:


Really? Why were the Aborigines in West Arnhem Land virtually wiped out, and  those who lived in the areas contacted by Muslims in  East Arnhem land able to resist genocide and dispossession of their lands?

I have been to Arnhem Land, and can tell you that is fertile land.






The fact is that the fertile coastal areas still in Aboriginal hands today correspond to where contact with Muslim Macassan traders were strongest. We know where the Macassan traders had their camps due to recordings of European explorers and settler, anecdoatal evidence from Indigenous Australians, and archaeological evidence found at these camps.

In fact there is evidence to suggest that large previously nomadic Indigenous communities began settling permanently in coastal areas due to their trade with Muslim Macassans.

My thesis covers these topics.



Orange is Aboriginal Land





Christian Europeans made many attempts to turn Arnhem Land into cattle stations. One of the most ambitious of these ventures was initiated by a Melbourne-based syndicate, the Eastern and African Cold Storage Supply Company, which leased land in 1899 and in 1903 decided to attempt a pastoral venture. The lease was vast, covering the whole of North East Arnhem Land or 51 800 square kilometres. This lease took over some of those abandoned late in the nineteenth century to the north of the Roper River. However, this lease also failed and was abandoned within five years. Several accounts of large scale massacres of Aboriginal people and atrocities have been recorded by historians as occurring during the tenure of the company in the area (Dewar 1985). It seems likely that these pastoralists faced increasing hostility from local Aboriginal people, and this forced them to abandon the enterprise.

Er, yes. I believe the Bradford Post Office has been outsourced to Pakistan - part of British Post's anti-modernisation/Islamicisation project.

Sorry. It might take some time.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 6:31pm:


Stop exposing your ignorance Freeliar. Only about 1% of Arnhem Land's 97,000 square kilometres are swamps.

If we compare similar areas in Australia's north, the Aborigines have been removed from the land, and white farmers have taken over the land. I have travelled around the Top End and seen that there are plenty of farms in the fertile coastal regions. Even in areas that borderline desert in the Northern Territory are being used by graziers. Arnhem Land is much greener and fertile than the areas to the south where there are lots of white farmers.

Quote:


Yeah, must be tough massacring people. Lucky the Aborigines had Islam to teach them how to turn a massacre into a glorious victory merely by discarding facts. [/quote]


The fact is that the Yolngu learnt from these massacres and mounted successful guerilla warfare in Arnhem Land against pastoral invaders and Japanese fishers who trangressed against them.

The Macassan traders sold guns to the Yolngu and warned them about the White Christian invaders. Even today the Yolngu people use the Indonesian word "Balander" for white man.

The Yolngu had seen white Dutch in their travels to Indonesia. They had been told to be wary of the whites, and knew they needed to resist them, and they knew how to deal with them.

The is in contrast to Aborigines in the south of Australia who thought that white people were ghosts. There are accounts of Aborigines literally shitting themselves upon seeing white people for the first time in Tasmania.

Quote:


This doesn't mean the land is suitable for european farming methods. There have also been plenty of failures, for economic reasons - nothing to do with violent Muslim influenced aborigines. Do you think it is militant aborigines that have kept Darwin's population to only 130 thousand? Or might it be the fact that immigrants don't really want to go there? The fact is, even when the land is virtually free up there, it is difficult to make a farm economic.

The Ord river debate revolves around this issue too. It has enourmous potential, but just difficult to realise, even with modern technology.

Did your thesis even consider the more practical side of things? or did it attempt to attribute everything to Islam like you do with other periods of History?

Did your thesis attempt to estimate the usefulness of the land to immigrant farmers in the absence of hostile aborigines? Did it consider the more rational and obvious explanation that the remoteness and lack of interest allowed the aborigines to maintain the self image of hostility without being slaughtered?

BTW, you still have not clarified whether it actually is your thesis. I hope you are not attempting to take credit for someone else's mindless postulations.