" What Sayeth The People ??? "

[polly.the.cat]

I Hope to bring interesting and thought provoking Questions here to this post, whereby others can express their thoughts and opinions or views on the Topic for consideration.

Please refrain from any form of profanity and respect the Right of Others to voice their opinion, if you do not feel that you can abide by this request, then please do not contribute to the Open Forum, Thank You.

This Weeks Question:    Is it about Time to Change or Replace Our Australian Flag ?

Editor's Thought:   Whilst Australia is still a Member of The Commonwealth Heads of Government, their are other CHOG Members that DO NOT have the Union Jack displayed on their Country Flag, e.g. Canada, PNG, Cyprus, Zambia, etc, etc. to name a few.

Fifty-three countries are members of the Commonwealth. Our countries span Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific and are diverse – they are amongst the world’s largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries. Thirty-one of our members are classified as small states – countries with a population size of 1.5 million people or less and larger member states that share similar characteristics with them.

All members subscribe to the Commonwealth’s values and principles outlined in The Commonwealth Charter.

- See more at: http://thecommonwealth.org/member-countries#sthash.LrhxvIAy.dpuf

So is it time for us to move with the times, and look at redesigning our National **bleep**, into something more " Aussie " ?

" What Sayeth The People ? "

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@lal-au0 wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:
So we should ignore the first residents of our country?

---

which first residents are those?

---

Those who were already living here when the first white colonists arrived.

---

so you mean the previous residents - those known as Australian Aboriginals? As distinct from the First Residents.

---

'previous' implies that they were here but not anymore. as far as i know they are still here. the ones who survived that is.

---

doesn't make them the first people / residents though does it? 

[lal-au0]

uuhhhmmm yes it does. unless you have proof that before them there were other humans here.

you are not going to tell me that noah was here before, are you?

[iapetus_rocks]

Well Noah must have been here at least once before . . . when he dropped off the kangaroos and the koalas. 😉

[rabbitearbandicoot]

look up mungo man - the oldest remains ever found in Australia. Mungo man was NOT related at all to current aboriginals. He was part of another race that obviously lived here BEFORE the current Australian Aboriginals. So, he could be a member of First Australians but then again, maybe an even older race may be found one day.

[lal-au0]

---

@iapetus_rocks wrote:

Well Noah must have been here at least once before . . . when he dropped off the kangaroos and the koalas. 😉

---

how could i forget

[lal-au0]

from what i have read so far mungo man was probably an ancestor of the aborigines.

also: there are no mungo men alive today so i cant really see what relevance they have for the flag.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

"Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA with that of ancient and modern Aborigines has indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian Aborigines. The results indicated that Mungo Man was an extinct subspecies".

Let me draw your attention to two facts:

1. Mungo man - the oldest remains found - dated to 40,000 years

2. Mungo man was NOT related to Australian Aboriginals.

so where do the current Aboriginals get their "we've been here for 60,000 years "bull-dust?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@lal-au0 wrote:

from what i have read so far mungo man was probably an ancestor of the aborigines.

also: there are no mungo men alive today so i cant really see what relevance they have for the flag.

---

that's not what I am debating - I am debating the phrase "First Australians" or "First Residents" - when they are obviously NOT.

Now, feel free to argue amongst yourselves and call me whatever names you please - I am going to bed.

[the_great_she_elephant]

 In 2001, Australian scientists claimed that they had extracted mitochondrial DNA from ‘Lake Mungo 3’ and nine other ancient Australians. They concluded that the genes of the modern-looking ‘Mungo Man’ were different from modern humans, proving that not all Homo sapiens have the same recent ancestor as stated in the ‘Out of Africa’ theory. These claims are controversial and have been met with a general lack of acceptance in scientific communities. - See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-spread-of-people-to-australia#sthash.XNfkS1zx.dpuf

The skeleton remains the oldest human discovered in Australia, doubling the known anthropological history of the continent — thought to date back 20,000 years at the time — and revealing Aborigines as belonging to the oldest surviving culture in the world.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/move-to-reunite-mungo-man-with-his-lady/story-e6...

The going theory among scientists before Bowler stumbled upon “Mungo Man” was that Aboriginals had arrived in Australia from Asia around 20,000 years ago. Mungo Man pushed that date back by at least another 20,000 years, while his ritualistic burial proved that a sophisticated culture had emerged on the far side of the Indian Ocean from Africa much earlier than anyone (except the Aboriginals) could ever have imagined.

http://www.ibtimes.com/mungo-man-story-behind-bones-forever-changed-australias-history-1558234

The oldest evidence for human occupation of the Lake Mungo region has been dated from stone tools at about 50,000 years. This is consistent with the oldest artifacts found in Western Australia and Northern Territory.

"Evidence for occupation at 60,000 years or greater remains to be established," says Bowler.

"Lake Mungo confirms that the first Australians had colonised the country by 50,000 years and by 40,000 years had brought with them art and ritual burial," he says.

The Lake Mungo remains are still Australia's oldest human remains. Mungo Man is still the first well-dated evidence found anywhere in the world of such cultural sophistication, in this case, the anointing of the body with ochre before or during burial.

"This research extends far beyond mere academic interest. The Mungo people's story is of major importance to both their present day indigenous descendants and to all non-indigenous Australians," says Bowler.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news472.html

I haven't been able to find anything that offers any proof that Mungo man was a different race to later aboriginal inhabitants of australia.

[azureline**]

Rabbit.... I was not aware that I was entering a discussion about who was here first....... the Aboriginals who were standing on the beach when the British landed here are who I consider to be the first residents of "Australia"