"Who were the first people here?"

This came up as a question on my Twitter time line yesterday.  It referred to a question which has been asked more than once. Are aboriginals the original inhabitants of Downunder and should they be referred to as "First Nations" people?

The answer to the first question would seem to be "there is no definitive answer but more likely than not they are". Most scientists seem to agree they are the original inhabitants and came from what we would now call "Indonesia". There is also some agreement they may have come in several waves. 

Somewhere down the scientific track we may know more but this is the best answer we have to date. 

What about the Tasmanian aboriginals, you ask? Well, this may be one reason why there is still some debate. We need to accept and acknowledge there are no set answers, just that some things are more likely than others.

But do we call these people "First Nations"? No, we should not be. It is not appropriate. "First Nations" is a Canadian term and there the background is quite different. I know far less about it than I should but Canadians who do know have told me the two cannot be compared.

What we have in this country is something entirely different. When white settlers came here there were no "nations". Instead there were around two hundred and fifty to three hundred tribes. Within those were "clans", sometimes as many as seven or eight. There were around the same number of languages and around eight hundred or more dialects.

In other words there were many small groups. They were often unable to communicate easily - if at all - with other groups. Their beliefs and rituals varied widely. Tribal warfare was common, even within small areas.  Some "Mobs", as tribal groups are commonly referred to, still refuse to have anything to do with other Mobs. There is no common culture. 

We should not be talking about "preserving aboriginal culture and language" as if it is just one culture and one language. It is many cultures and many languages. At best only a part, often a small part, will be retained.

We are not "teaching the children in their native language" either. We are trying to teach them in a new language, a language heavily influenced by the ideas of the last century and this one. There were no words for "computer", for "car", for "plane" or "pizza". Even ideas about something apparently as simple as counting need to be introduced from outside. (Some indigenous languages only have words for the idea of "one" or "more than one".) The idea of a "rainbow serpent" does not appear in all tribal groups. Initiation rites vary widely.  The "dot paintings" are not "traditional" at all. They only came into being about fifty years ago - and were the result of the influence of a white art teacher. 

Yes of course we can talk about the "first people" who were here but we need to recognise that "people" is a plural. There were many of them and the differences between them are enormous.  Only when we begin to genuinely recognise that might we begin to make some progress.