coke wrote:
Jay wrote:
coke wrote:
Another point completely missed...
You really are a daft cunt
I'm not the one breaking every point/debate down to it's most rudimentary and completely missing the points being made on literally every topic being discussed.
So please explain what "modern static borders" have to do with the Australasian aboriginals and their civilisation? How was their civilisation built on top another exactly?
You seem to be confused between Nation States and civilisations.
Considering they have no written records, it's difficult to determine who came before them. By extrapolating the rest of human history, it is a near certainty that some other civilization did come before them.
With modern static borders, people have been locked into certain areas. It's become impolite to cross a certain river or boundary line without permission. If you look at tribal movements during the Roman era you see much more fluidity. Tribes moved across vast distances to seek wealth or better land. The Goths moved all the way from Southern Sweden and Northern Germany to Spain. The Celts got pushed into Wales and retained Ireland. My point is that no one had or has a real claim to any land until the advent of the land deed. Until then, the rule was simply the strong prevailed.
It still is, for the most part. Our deeds and titles are only as strong as our rule of law. Our governments can throw us off the land we claim to own whenever they want. They hold a monopoly on force.
Last edited by Jay (2018-10-24 04:27:53)
