I get all the “being upset because I have to virtue signal” stuff but really, when someone describes them as primitive, if you stop to examine the situation, its because comparatively they were, not because “racism.” Its not the fault of the Australian aboriginal peoples, not calling them inferior and not indication that they did something wrong. It was luck of the draw- they ended up on a mostly uninhabitable landmass, restricting population and trade. No neighboring tribes in all directions like you find in the rest of the world, instead it was heavily coastal and still sparse at that. Speaking of which, the influx of external ideas- something every other culture relied on for advancement- was comparatively low. Nobody else in the world became “Advanced” on their own, but by cultural exchange and trade. Unfortunately the Australians were limited by geography in who they could trade with and how frequently. This also lead to a lack of genetic diversity which also, historically, is a weakness since the competition of a constant influx of stronger traits was not as intense as it would be in other places.
So they were never to invent a lot of the technologies and concepts the rest of the world did, but it would be extremely remarkable if they did. Imagine one society inventing all the things that were pulled from all across the world to allow Rome to become what it was, or that made the Renaissance what it was? They lived in harsh conditions and adapted to those conditions, developed their own culture that was not challenged to have to adapt as frequently as most through wars, migration, alliances, trade and other things that draw humans together and into competition. That’s just how it is, its not an indictment of the people.
For the game they would not be a good fit because they were so far from the rest.- though this is based on primary research that was not carefully collected at the time it could have been by historians. They did not develop the same kinds of weapons, sticking mostly to a shield with clubs and spears as well as the boomerang, which is really a throwing club we’ve built a false image of. Generally their warfare was ceremonial and among small groups that announced themselves, and involved the practice of religiously-significant “Sorcery”(that’s how I see it described in the material) before the battle. Then the men would fight and then everyone would go home. Sieges and siege equipment weren’t really a thing, fortifications were minor. Stonework was not a bedrock of a power base. Competition for lands was not as intense. People who were “professional” soldiers appear to not have been very common at all. Developments in armor did not really take place, as such armor-defeating weapons did not either. Another one of those consequences of the lack of external ideas, although maybe it would be a positive overall, is their warfare did not escalate(as far as we know) beyond the settling of feuds and the punishment of criminals. Its not a matter of lacking metalsmithing, as the natives of the Americas still had all of these, as well as more organized forms of fighting, sieges, ambushes, dedicated/trained military units, etc.
It just feels like it would be a very strange inclusion to put this group that had no ambitions of conquest against all the others who most certainly did.
TL;DR- When someone says a group was primitive technologically, it doesn’t mean that they disapprove of the people or are casting aspersions onto them as individuals or a culture. Its just a baseline comparison of technological and ideological development devoid of an explanation of how or why it came to be that way.
