Max Dancona About Australian aboriginals: "Violence can take many forms, and since these forms can have different proximate causes, it is important to sort them out. Keeley (1996), for example, classifies Australia Aboriginal society as warlike egalitarian foragers, but Fry (2006) demonstrates that most of this fighting was rare, and usually fell under the category of feuding or revenge killings rather than warfare."
Fry, Douglas P.. War, Peace, and Human Nature (p. 154). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
"Aboriginal society was egalitarian with no formal government or chiefs. Authority rested with elders who held extensive ritual knowledge gained over many years. Group decisions were generally made through the consensus of elders. The traditional economy was cooperative, with males generally hunting large game while females gathered local staples such as small animals, shellfish, vegetables, fruits, seeds and nuts. Food was shared within groups and exchanged across groups.[29]
Aboriginal groups were semi-nomadic, generally ranging over a specific territory defined by natural features. Members of a group would enter the territory of another group through rights established by marriage and kinship or by invitation for specific purposes such as ceremonies and sharing abundant seasonal foods (a hallmark of egalitarian cultures). As all natural features of the land were created by ancestral beings, a group's particular country provided physical and spiritual nourishment."
“One important way in which marriages were arranged was infant betrothal.[12] Usually this was between a young girl and an older man. A man’s first marriage would not necessarily fall into this category: his first wife might well be an older widow. A girl could be betrothed either as a potential mother-in-law[13] or as a wife. Indeed it was possible for a girl to be betrothed before she was born and to grow up knowing who her future husband was likely to be. The promised relationship created a series of lifelong responsibilities and obligations between the young man and his promised wife’s relations. For example, the young man might be required to provide food for his future mother-in-law.[14] While the girl was growing up she would normally have regular contact with her promised husband, so that when the marriage eventually took place he was no stranger to her. However, the fact that negotiations had taken place and promises made was no guarantee that a marriage would take place, or that a girl would consider herself obligated to remain married to her promised husband (emphasis mine). Refusal to marry, or to perform obligations to family associated with marriage arrangements, would usually give rise to arguments, but if the prospective husband or wife persisted in refusal, renegotiation was possible. This might involve arranging a substitute or agreeing to compensate the aggrieved person in some way.
The age of marriage was very different for men and women, and differed also as between various parts of Australia. Usually, a girl would marry at or about the age of puberty;[15] a man not until later (in his late twenties or even later).[16] Among some Aboriginal groups, at least, marriages were often polygynous (with a husband having two or more wives): a wife, on the other hand, would have only one husband at a time, although usually she would be married to several husbands in succession, as the former husband died or the marriage broke up.[17] There was, in most groups, no single marriage ceremony, although particular acts or events (eg sharing a campfire) would result in the recognition of the marriage by the community.[18] Divorce could occur by mutual consent or unilaterally, again, in most cases, without any particular formality: divorce involved, and was signified by, the termination of cohabitation.[19] However, if a wife eloped or otherwise left a husband without his consent, he might try to bring her back by force, seek to punish her or her lover, or seek compensation. In each of these respects he might be assisted by his kin. Similarly if a husband became involved with another woman his wife might be required by customary law to ritually and publicly fight the other woman.[20]
In other words, this is not the Saudi Arabia or India style child marriage scenario, and women continue to have a lot of say and relative power within those relationships. Failing to take the full context into consideration seems rather like what you were railing against earlier — evaluating indigenous people through the lens of Western norms.
