General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sky News Australia
comments

Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Call for Victorian authorities to ‘dismantle’ camp of Indigenous activists in Kings Domain" video.

Not according to the High Court.
3
So are free just to wander into Gina Rineharts home and check out her kitchen?
2
Or into Pauline Hansons home and wander through her kitchen.
2
@simongross3122 So there is evidence of indigenous dot painting on bodies going back thousands of years. Central Australian indigenous groups also drew dot paintings in the sand during ceremonial activities. This is all documented. For cultural reasons these drawings and body painting was removed once the ceremony was over. What changed in the early seventies was a school teacher in Alice Springs (can’t remember his name) introduced acrylic paint and canvas to the central Australian indigenous community and encouraged them to paint their dot point style, which I remind you they had been doing for thousands of years. Initially indigenous artists were reluctant as these images have great cultural significance, so the dot paintings became more and more abstract and what we see today is the result. Some artists work sell for tens of thousands of dollars on the international art scene. Nice try to belittle Ann ancient and significant art form. Got any other racist misinformation for me to debunk.
2
@4pmpm896 Many civilisations didn't find any requirement for a wheel, and the British certainly didn't invent it either. Indigenous culture had a system of songlines and oral traditions for passing on knowledge. Are you suggesting Indigenous people in Australia are the only people who fought over territory, if so you claim is just ludicrously stupid. Finally your last claim is just factually incorrect. The High Court 6 to 1 said your opinion is utterly wrong, and Indigenous people in Australia had English common law rights to land and in fact did have characteristics of a nation. Read the Mabo decision. You are just factually wrong.
2
@Uknow1997heheeh Factually incorrect. The DNA evidence is clear, approximately 5000 years ago there was a South Asian connection in Northern Australia and this lines up with a spurt in cooking technology. Your claim is false.
2
@iankearns774 A completely nonsensical statement that just has white supremacy written all over it. Central Australian artists exhibit their work in galleries all over the world and sell for tens of thousands of dollars.
2
@rosshitchen-ij6en That's not my point. In relation to the original comment I was pointing out there are vast tracts of non aboriginal owned land where the general public are not allowed. What is the difference?
1
@Hinz853 So no problems walking into the home of the CEO of Westpac and sitting down and having dinner with his family whenever you wish to express your freedom to do whatever you want?
1
The NIAA was audited by the ANAO less than a year ago, as have numerous land councils. The Audit found some areas to fix and the NIAA accepted its findings as is working to implement its recommendations. You comment is just ignorance of the highest order.
1
When you say “afford” do you mean with time? Money? Which rights do you feel you need to fight for?
1
@LeeGordon-fp9zf So you are guessing. I can do that.
1
@LeeGordon-fp9zf Yes you have the right to post a vague nonsensical comment that all your rights are under threat. I mean, seriously, what a ludicrously stupid statement.
1
No indigenous people were allowed to sign up in WWI. It was against the law. Recruiters overlooked this however as they got desperate as the war went on and aboriginality was ignored. All indigenous men were denied war pensions and assistance after the war. That’s what you should be sad about. Read the history.
1
The High Court Mabo decision says your comment is factually and demonstrably wrong. Read the Mabo decision. Your definition of what constitutes a nation is wrong.
1
There is literally no evidence whatsoever of any human species inhabiting the Australian mainland prior to the Aboriginal. None, zip, zero, zilch.
1
@kellysouter4381 6 High Court judges listened to the evidence and declared it was no mistake. Aboriginals had common law rights to the land we illegally disposed them of. Deal with it. It is the truth.
1
@ch33psk8 Factually incorrect. The early governers of the separate colonies were using the principles of Terra Nullius in the early 19th Century. It was proven beyond all doubt to be utterly false in the case of Australia and English common law rights existed at the time of colonisation. It is you who obviously can't move on. Your argument was proven false in the High Court 6 to 1. You are wrong. Time for you to accept reality.
1
@CC-uq4hu Yes it does. The High Courts decision is final. No appeals. It is the law. Your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is worthless. Indigenous Australians had English common law land rights at colonisation. That is a fact.
1
@morganglen80 No it is you who seems to not be able to move on. The High Court has decided. It's decision is final. It can't be appealed. Indigenous Australians had English common law land rights at colonisation. Time for you to accept reality.
1
@ch33psk8 Name it.
1
@rosshitchen-ij6en No need to. As per native title law, indigenous people can who can prove connection to the land are granted title to it. This is common public knowledge,perhaps you are not Australian.
1
@rosshitchen-ij6en My apologies then. I’m not in any way suggesting colonialism was perfect, and acknowledge the great harm it brought to the indigenous people. However there have been some pluses, and a secular system of laws, despite its imperfections is one of them. The RWNJs hate it.
1
@ch33psk8 As I said the RWNJs hate it.
1
@ch33psk8 Nonsensical gibberish that I'm sure you don't even understand.
1
@ch33psk8 More RWNJ nonsensical gibberish. They are quite good at it.
1
@ch33psk8 RWNJs love their separatism, so again I have no idea WTF you are on about.
1
@ch33psk8 Yes but more so for the RWNJ white supremacists. We have multiple ideas for the future if only the RWNJs conservatives could accept progress instead of harping on back to the 19th century.
1
@Kelly-wf5ie Factually incorrect. Look up the definition of indigenous in any encyclopaedia. If you are born here you most certainly are Australian but not necessarily indigenous. Your statement is demonstrably false.
1
@JC-lu4se OMG, you only read the first paragraph of the definition. Delete your post quickly before everybody reads it and realises what a goose you are. The second paragraph reads. "(often of Indigenous)(of people) inhabiting in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists. So yes Aboriginal Australians are indeed native and indigenous to the Australian mainland. Thanks for proving my point. That is indeed the Oxford dictionary meaning of indigenous.
1
@highcountrydelatite a factually and demonstrably wrong statement. As explained in my previous comment. Central Australia indigenous people have been dot painting their bodies and dot drawing in the sand for thousands of years. It was transferred to canvas with the introduction of acrylic paint in the 70s. Read up on the subject before attempting your racist misinformation.
1
@highcountrydelatite Again factually incorrect Mungo man is a Homo sapien. DNA confirmed. There is evidence of 65000 years +/- 5000 years occupation gleaned from caves in the Kimberly. There is literally no evidence whatsoever of any other human species inhabiting the Australian mainland. Your argument is the same racist argument used by Keith Windshuttle and like to attempt to discredit indigenous land rights. It failed abysmally.
1
@highcountrydelatite There is literally no evidence of your claim whatsoever.
1
@victorianhighcountry Factually incorrect. Archaeological evidence from the Kimberley indicates occupation from 65000 +/- 5000 years ago. Mungo man was homo sapian and the DNA evidence is clear. There is no evidence whatsoever of any earlier human species occupying the Australian mainland. Your argument was used by racists and the likes of Keith Windshuttle to discredit indigenous land claims during Mabo. It failed.
1
Just to be clear the archaeological evidence from caves in the Kimberley region has the occupation of indigenous Australians at 65000 years +/- 5000 years. Mungo man is a homo sapian and the DNA evidence proves this. There is literally no evidence whatsoever of any human species occupying the Australian mainland prior to Aboriginal Australians. These arguments were used by the likes of Keith Windshuttle to discredit land right claims during the Mabo court case. It utterly failed. The High Court found 6 to 1 indigenous people had English common law land rights due to their occupation. This decision is final it can't be changed. It can't be appealed.
1
@timrohds750 I haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about.
1
Dot painting is one of the most recognized forms of Aboriginal art. People think it is just simple dots, animals, and fine lines but it is much more than that. Aboriginal artists use symbols, images, and meticulous rules to create dot paintings that tell stories. If a story has historical or sacred information, an artist needs permission before they can paint it. Dot paintings are the visual stories of the Aboriginal people. Historically, Aboriginal people of central and western Australia created “paintings” on the sand using rocks, flowers, sticks, seeds, and feathers. These paintings were full of sacred symbols, images, and meaning. As elders created the sand paintings, they sang songs and told stories about Aboriginal history, religion, traditions, and beliefs. Sand paintings were temporary, but eventually they became modern day dot paintings. A more permanent form of sand painting was creating the work on tree bark. Painting on bark was first done on shelters, but in the 1920s Aboriginal artists were encouraged to recreate the paintings from shelters on small pieces of tree bark that could be sold to tourists and collectors. Click here to see Aboriginal artist Banduk Marika talk about her bark painting. In the 1970s, European artists helped Aboriginal artists turn the sacred symbols and images from sand paintings into dots which could be painted on canvas, canvas board or sheeting. After that, works could be sold and shipped all over the world. Today, dot paintings appear on Aboriginal instruments, everyday objects, buildings, vehicles, and all types of tourist objects.
1
@paulgraham5790 Seriously, that's your argument, if you haven't personally witnessed an event or thing then it didn't happen. Fallacious garbage.
1
@simongross3122 That's not what I said. Other cultures may have used dot point painting, happy to be fact checked on this. My point was dot point drawing/painting was not introduced to central Australian indigenous groups. What was introduced was acrylic paint and canvas. Indigenous people had been using ochres from the ground and mixing them with water to dot paint their bodies long before colonisation.
1
@iankearns774 If you had even the remotest clue about art history, you would understand the ignorance of your comment. Hint look up the meaning of the word "renaissance". These renaissance artists didn't just pop out of nowhere in isolation. I have just been to the Kandinsky exhibition at the NSWAG, tell me his work is childlike, it certainly isn't any more detailed or elaborate than works by Nungurrayi or Petyarre.
1
@simongross3122 Firstly I did not in any way suggest you are a racist only that several positions and statements and some arguments on this comment section have been racist. I have not in any way compromised my point. You suggesting that Central Australian indigenous people were taught dot painting by an art teacher in the 70s. That statement is factually wrong. He introduced acrylic paint and canvas. Indigenous people had already been dot painting/drawing for thousands of years.
1
@Ripa-Moramee It's called science and it is how we learn. Archaeological discoveries in the Kimberley along with better more advanced means of determining the date and age of found items means we now estimate occupation by Aboriginals 65000 years ago +/- 5000 years. This is the same science that enabled us to go from winged flight in 1903 to the moon less than sixty years later. I honestly can't believe I need to explain this to you.
1
@maxfish4770 Just a nonsensical comment. As I have said on numerous occasions now central Australian indigenous groups have been dot painting/drawing for thousands of years. What was introduced in the 70s was acrylic paint and canvas, not the style. I’m not arguing western techniques have not influenced modern dot painters it most certainly has. As to finding it boring that is just uneducated opinion. Central Australian artists sell their works for tens of thousands of dollars and are exhibited in the most important art galleries throughout the world. Your opinion of their art is worthless.
1
@maxfish4770 No. All I have done is regurgitate the known data. This is not my opinion. All you have is your uneducated opinion. You provide no evidence of anything. There are caves and rock faces in the Kimberleys with rock art that is in the style of dot painting that is thousands of years old. Your argument is nonsensical garbage.
1
@maxfish4770 You are factually and demonstratively incorrect. A dot painting by Tjapaltjarri sold for $2.4 million. Your opinion of dot painting is literally worthless.
1
@iankearns774 And your point is? That many cultures painted their bodies and many still do. No shit Sherlock.
1
@iankearns774 Central Australian dot point artists sell their work for $millions and are exhibited in major museums and art galleries throughout the world. Again your lack of understanding of the spirituality and style of dot painting is a worthless critique. I’m sure there are subjects of which you have some knowledge, stick to those.
1
@iankearns774 Finally the reason for your ignorance, straight out normal everyday racism. There are white supremacists like yourself everywhere and I wouldn’t piss in your ear if your brain was on fire. You just can’t help wilful stupidity.
1
@iankearns774 So finally, a honest comment, and straight out normal racism is the reason for your ignorance. Again your opinion of indigenous dot painting is literally worthless and your justification for your opinion is nonsensical. All you needed to say was you don't like dot painting, many people don't, but you had to justify it and in doing so revealed yourself. Again thanks for your honesty.
1
@jschap712 And your point is?
1
@jschap712 So your point is because you don't understand something it has no worth. All that is, is an argument from ignorance.
1