The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Wanderings in a desert > Comments

Wanderings in a desert : Comments

By Donna Jacobs Sife, published 9/6/2006

The loss of innocence in the Red Centre of Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
Interesting to see that "lyrebird" (aka Donna Jacobs Sife) has rejoined the discussion ... but the poor person feels "a little sullied" by some of the eclectic comments. Boo hoo!!

One of our eclectic lot asked her about the loss of knowledge that we "so desperately need to save this earth of ours". Is she going to give us an answer?

Given her praise of Neil Hewett's posts, am I to believe that subincisions all round are the solution? But what do we give to the female half of the population? Genital mutilations, or would a burqa do?
Posted by EnerGee, Thursday, 15 June 2006 9:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being new to this thread I have been fascinated/appalled by the range of opinion, fact and fantasy here. I have also been shocked by the number of writers who are unable to enter into the discussion and be open to new ways of thinking. Brutal, insensitive attacks on either side do not advance any of the arguements.

Savage pencil I am intrigued as to your definition of "human advancement" when most modern capitalist societies are freewheeling towards creating a world where it will be impossible for humans to existence, let alone advance. It was one thing when the Western World was raiding resources and polluting for commercial gain but now that everyone else has learned how to do the same we are all in even more trouble. The rocks and plants and a fair few creatures will last a lot longer than humans who are grabbing what they can while they can and ignoring the legacy that they are leaving for their own progeny. The inequality that exists on this planet is a disgrace and pushing the evidence into ghettos, turning the page or tv station over and trying to relinquish responsibility for it doesn't make it any more acceptable.

The so called "sophisticated", "advanced","intelligent", "enlightened" empire-builders of the past have all been cruel and tyrannical on a grand scale. And it continues...and the abused cultures then become the abusers. Resentment , anger and fear fuel the acceptance of abuse until everyone feels justified in being offensively defensive. What a great world we, the "advanced" are creating/destroying.

Compassion for our own abused pasts and empathy for others will go a long way towards opening meaningful dialogue that might just enable us all to advance together in a more peaceful manner. None of us are right. We are all learning.....I hope!
Posted by worldkitten, Thursday, 15 June 2006 9:36:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neil said:

BUT, for those that choose otherwise,

eternal damnation and infinite suffering in the pit-fires of hell, for ever and ever and ever.

COMMENT:

Neill, you make a very good point. "Choice".. but in your comment you also implicitly judge the Almighty. Dangerous ground I'd say.
Even the author Donna "Jacob's" is living testimony to the God who acts in history for the Salvation of mankind.

Who in their right mind would choose other than the Creator ? and why ? Rather than emphasizing the peril and suffering of rejecting God, why not ask 'why reject' ? and also ask what are the benefits and blessings of living under Grace with the Almighty, compared with rejecting Him and living according to the lusts of the mind and flesh ?

Savage Pencil makes the point about your cultural relativism, to which you respond with another relativistic statement "Sustainability" being that which most promotes human survival. The problem is, you offer no ultimate authority for this, without a divine sanction, your view is just that.. 'your view'.
You may be able to marshal compelling reasons for that view, but others can do likewise for contrary views, that they will claim have the same goal. Some are interested in survival by 'exterminating' segments of the human race, such as the authors ethno/religous group during WWII, others by re-ordering our use of resources.

Unless you can speak with more authority than simply your own reason, it is a resounding gong or a tinkling symbol
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 15 June 2006 9:36:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...
This clash of cultures existing in Australia is profound. I am no expert but it seems that the idea of time being linear rather than cyclic is a huge conceptual difference between Aboriginal cultures and anglo/european ones. We are taught from an early age to think of the future as somthing different and to experiment and celebrate the new. We call it "progress" and it has a forward motion. When I visited the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land I was profoundly touched by the ways they are working to marry their cyclic view of the world - where they are instrumental in "maintaining" rather than "advancing" the status quo - with the more globally modern idea of "progress" and "advancement".

The western world has accomplished many amazing things but most agree that we are stuffing it all up right now. We need to look to each other to find solutions.

I applaud the Yolngu people for thinking carefully about how they will combine their own ideas of how the world is with ours so that both gain from the mix. They call it "Ganma" or two way learning. After only two visits to see my Yolngu friends I couldn't even begin to explain the "knowledge" that they have that we can learn from - there are so many levels to their understanding of the world. Yes, some ideas seem fantastic and can frustrate those who don't easily comprehend the language of metaphor. Someone once said a nation is defined by the stories it tells itself. I would suggest that my culture is impoverished by many of the superficial reality tv stories it tells itself and could learn a lot from the social metaphors the Yolngu have inherited from their relationship with the land. It seems to me their spirituality is as much about the way in which they describe the world to themselves as it is about their relationship with so called mythical ancestors. It's time we rewrote the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and what we dream for our collective futures.
Posted by worldkitten, Thursday, 15 June 2006 10:31:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To worldkitten

Some Yolngu people may have a concept of time that is cyclic but that doesn't alter the fact that time itself is linear. It moves forward, we should progress. Mind you, one could argue that John Howard's concept of time is cyclic as he, like some Yolnu, is much more interested in maintaining rather than advancing. Or in the case of civil unions and industrial relations, he wants to retreat backwards to the 1950s and the 1850s respectively.

I have visited Uluru several times and read quite extensively about Anangu culture but haven't been able to find any profound metaphors in the Tjukurpa stories. Just lots of contradictions.

Mind you Anangu aren't helped by the speciousness of some of their Parks Australia friends. I recall being told by a white ranger in 2001 who was sounding off about The Climb, that "If there was anywhere else in the world that was this dangerous, then they'd close it down immediately."

Yet people die in New Zealand national parks all the time by falling off mountains - places that we are told are spiritually important to Maori - yet there is never any call to stop people adventuring over there. And of course, there is that other big mountain in Nepal which has claimed far more lives than Uluru ever has.
Posted by EnerGee, Thursday, 15 June 2006 11:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Savage Pencil. You say Malik notes: "To regard people as 'temporarily backward' rather than 'permanently different' is to accept that while people are potentially equal, cultures definitely are not; it is to accept the idea of social and moral progress; and it is to accept that it would be far better if everyone had the chance to live in the type of society or culture that best promoted human advancement.”

I don't want to be "politically uncouth" but you'd be hard pressed to find a society that didn't have some negative aspects to it. Why do you think your comrades focus on the Indigenous of Australia?

The fact that some folk on OLO target Indigenous culture while turning a blind eye to their own cultural failings suggests racism or at least cultural suprematism to Rancitas. Moreover, I don't see the relevance of SP's claims to Indigenous ancestry given that he has rejected the culture and perhaps put words into his granny's mouth to back his position?

FYI. Rancitas is German/Moorish/Italian/Prussian/English/Australian and in my culture we look to the kind of person one is. For instance: Rancitas is a bona fide dropkick.

Any society without the right to choice is wrong. If I choose to go and get a piercing through my old fella, my clit (if I had one) or my tongue( I certainly have one) or a tattoo - that is my choice.

Having said that, I think the idea of age of consent is a sound reason for Indigenous peoples' to reject subincision and Euro cultures to outlaw circumcision. Too young to choose.

I think that the Indigenous culture was/is pre-Socratic in that ancestral law was still sacred. Socrates asked why? Why people believed that their ideas were true. Answer? Because the ancestors who had the authority of the law on their side said so. For Socrates’ politically incorrect questioning he had the choice between drinking of some hemlock or the prospect of state execution. He saw the Law and respect for the State as being more important than his own position. cont.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 15 June 2006 3:51:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy