Search results

What subject, oral tradition in general or Australian traditions in particular? While you're at it (unlike Quantum Mechanics or most other STEM topics, history seems to be a topic everyone feels free to write treatises about, for some reason), do everyone a favour and look up "source criticism"...

No, it's part of human nature, as explained above by fugl and Mysticete. That's a rather charitable interpretation. Might I also point out that it seems to be underfed by a very peculiar redefinition of words like "indigenous", "aboriginal", and "native", which seems to be very widespread...

The main problem with oral tradition is "anyone can make up stuff". And yes, it is also subject to change over the generations. Aside from that, it has to be handled with great caution, probably even more than other primary sources. Physical evidence, be it artifacts, biological matter, or...

Somehow, I think you didn't understand the bolded part...

Depends on how narrowly you define "peacefully"... It might also be worth pointing out that a lot of historians focus on other things than just war and politics, it's just that those aspects of history dominate in the media, since they tend to sell better.

That's not how the burden of proof works. Your thread (as per the title) makes a very bold claim about the superior land management by "indigenous communities" (no geograhical or temporal context provided), based on a single study about Australia. What about the rest of the world, then? That's...

Really? I've yet to see proof of that outside Australia. Also, "indigenous" is not a proper name and there's no need to spell it with a capital I.