Similarities between Aztecs and Australia Aboriginal?
To be honest I don't think there are many. Australian aborigonies were mainly hunter-gatherers, living in very simple tribal societies, whereas the Aztecs had a sophisticated, highly structured society with cities, temples etc. Both worshipped many gods and goddesses, but the aborigonies as far as I know did not have human sacrifice etc.
Should Australia give Australia back to the Aboriginals?
Have......have they ASKED for it back??????? didn't think so
What is the aboriginal word for 'dream'?
Aboriginal? There is no such language. If you're talking about Australia, there are multiple languages, not dialects, and the same is true in North and South America.
Are MEXICANS, AMERICAN ABORIGINES (NATIVE AMERICAN)?
Wow, I'm almost insulted with all these answers, none before me seem to have gotten the essence of this question. The term "Native American" implies one being born on this soil. Hey does anyone out there know what the word Aborigine means? (according to Webster). Savage I totally got your guest ion! "Native to this land" That's what it means, so ........ does being born on this CONTINENT make you an American is a ligament question considering all the hype about birth place and birth right. America is not about a piece of land! Mexicans are "Red Skins" and any "Indian" who forgets that fact is an idiot and a f*** traitor. Columbus came here in pursuit of India. He and his crew landed here by accident and mistook the "Mexicans/Anasazi for "Indians". That's how they got the title "Indian". LOL OK...........So......does being born on this Continent make you an American? I'd like to know too! Native Mexicans are Indians too, get a clue!
Are aboriginal Australians the most primitive race of humans?
There's no proof to suggest that they do well in intelligence categories which would be beneficial for hunting and gathering as far as I know. Also, the IQ figure you're referring to is likely very inaccurate since it was established using a very small sample of Australian Aboriginals without much education who lived in absolute poverty in remote communities. In order to know their true IQ's, their environments would have to be equal to those of for example whites who racists always like to use as an example of "superiority". On top of that, the IQ figure was established in the earlier half of the 20th century and it's been proven with "The Flynn Effect" that in that time period, IQ's were significantly lower than what they are today. For example, in the 1960's, Europe's average IQ was around 81, but today us around 100. IQ's rise with environmental changes. So basically, you don't have much evidence to suggest Australian Aboriginals are sub-human.
Why weren't the Australian Aboriginals nearly as vulnerable to the European-brought diseases as the Native Americans?
This is difficult to answer, since this happened quite some time ago, and is very ill documented.Human races can differ quite a lot in terms of disease resistance, as you can see for example when you look at Sickle cell anomaly. Some people have this mutation, leading to an increased resistance to Malaria. It is possible that the original native Americans had some genetic vulnerabilities to certain european diseases.Yet they would have to be very unlucky indeed. When globalisation hit the world, many previously isolated areas had a lot of contact with diseases they never encountered before, yet we never saw death on such a scale as would have been necessary to decimate the native Americans.In my personal opinion, the native Americans were decimated due to a combination of factors. It is possible that due to European attacks and internal instability, society broke down, which led to sanitary problems, hunger and war. The emphasis on disease is in my opinion a political move of our generation to prevent being made responsible for a genocide.Yet, it still remains a mistery why the American native nations broke down quite so fast. This is even more obvious when you look at South America. I have read many possible explanations, but none of them sounded really plausible. After all, the Europeans took over a vast and fertile continent inhabited by ancient civilisations. In my opinion, neither European aggression and technology, nor disease can really explain the failure of the American natives during this time of expansion. It is and will remain a mistery.
Did the Aboriginal Australian, Native Americans, and the people of New Zealand have guns like the Europeans, or not?
Australian Aborigines were at the Stone Age level of technology in the 18th century, using only wood and rock weapons.