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 > Entitled to sympathy but not to an apology > Comments

Entitled to sympathy but not to an apology : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 6/7/2007

Nobody is to blame for the sad state of the Aboriginal people. It just happened.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
This article needed to more strongly convey the message that the scarcity of meat was a major impediment to the development of our indigenous people beyond the most basic level. The relative supply of reliable water was the other major factor. At times Aboriginal tribes came close to perishing. Living a life close to the margin for survival is not conducive to development.

Unlike Australia, there were herding animals in North America - but there were none which could be corralled and domesticated. In South America there were herding animals which could be domesticated. Because of this advantage, and in contrast to North America, there were real towns in South America and not villages of tents.

Large herds of buffalo and caribou resulted in North American settlements of hundreds of people while in Australia the settlements were generally less than 100 individuals. It was the relative large size of the North American tribes which made it easier for the whites to establish treaties [every one of which was dishonoured]. There was no mention in the article of the clash in this country between black and white and reports in the historical records are fragmentary. As the whites were the only ones writing the history, cover-ups can be expected.

The bow and arrow was more accurate than the spear and woomera. Otherwise, the North American native was not technologically more advanced than the Australian native. In the Middle East, Asia and Europe it seems that the beginning of modern society as we know it began with the desire to construct buildings of stone. The weight of the material led to the invention of apparatus to move heavy stone. From then on one technical advance led to another. Sometimes there was no technological move forward for a few centuries and then there was a sudden jump to be followed by another long delay.
Posted by healthwatcher, Friday, 6 July 2007 8:41:21 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
It is time to thoroughly address the question of "who is indigenous?"
I understand that, in North America, the standard is one grandparent who is of "full-blood". If that standard was applied here then I believe that a number of the most outspoken activists who presume to speak on behalf of "their people" would be ruled out.
There also appears to be a belief out there that a "traditional way of life" has to be preserved and that this is what people want. Is it? Do indigenous people really lack the same aspirations as other Australians or are we asking them to maintain a separate way of life so that we can feel good about 'preserving their culture'. The reality is surely that 'their culture' is now a myth so corrupted by contact with other cultures that it has altered forever. Do we really want indigenous children growing up not speaking English and not having basic concepts to cope with the 21st C because their languages did not need and therefore do not have words to cover them.
Indigenous people do not need an apology and most do not want one. It is political activists who want the apology. Indigenous people want to get on with life - and they have no chance while the activists who claim to work on their behalf keep blocking every move to try and help them on the grounds that their culture and way of life has to be preserved.
Posted by Communicat, Friday, 6 July 2007 9:08:15 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
The notable element missing in this entire article is the notion of self-determination.

It is the indigenous communities themselves who will decide whether their culture has validity. It is the indigenous communities themselves who will decide whether an invasion occurred, whether they deserve a treaty and whether Jan 26, 1788 will be marked as "invasion day".

Certainly not half-baked commentator with less than a undergraduate's understanding of anthropology.

@commuunicat
'It is time to thoroughly address the question of "who is indigenous?"'

Amazingly, this is also defined by the communities themselves. Want to become an aboriginal? Live with them long enough, interact with them long enough, abide by their norms and conventions and soon enough you will find that the elders will vouch for you. Just like they did for Buckley.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 6 July 2007 9:44:25 AM
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
This is the most sensible and enlightening/enlightened article on the subject to come this way!

Thank you, Brian Holden.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 6 July 2007 10:03:21 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
Some quibbles with Holden's article:

The struggle for land rights was not motivated by some idea about "the preservation of a culture in its original form" - it was based on the need for some justice to occur in relation to Indigenous rights to property - i.e. their legal interest in the land.

Holden arrogantly states that culture "has no validity after the loss of the original environment it evolved out of". Obviously culture grows out of physical reality, but it is the responsibility of Indigenous people to work out how to adapt their existing culture to contemporary realities. We can't simply wave a wand and tell them that their culture no longer exists, so they should just forget it. Apart from anything else, that simply won't work.

Holden's broad brush dismissal of Aboriginal activists displays his own ignorance.

For example, one of the firebrands of the 1970s land rights movement, Marcia Langton, produced (in 1990) a groundbreaking report on the dysfunction in NT Aboriginal communities for the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. It forthrightly spotlighted the enormous violence, alcohol abuse, sexual degradation and child neglect in forthright terms. It was called "Too Much Sorry Business", and is worth seeking out and reading now in light of recent events. Many other Aboriginal women have made similar brave public stands over the last couple of decades.

Holden may be erudite and articulate, but he is somewhat more lacking in knowledge than he may care to admit.
Posted by Dan Fitzpatrick, Friday, 6 July 2007 10:24:47 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
G'day, There is just too much said here That I take issue with, to comment about in one post.Raving about animals and food and about the 21stcentury. I would suggest you step into anothers shoes just while you read some history, try Henry Reynolds, author. the only real efforts to publish some truths concerning ' the invasion'
realise the sustained concerted efforts of govt to demolish a nation of humans in every way possible. For one reason only, " their land"
It takes a large amount of thick hide and arrogance to look an indigenous person in the eye when you hate them for still being here to remind you of what you have taken and still possess.
Yes once you start talking about the colour of skin the amount of mixed blood, you are far down the road of racism, you realise of course that indigenous australians didn't colonize the land of white skins where we white anglo saxon english speaking christians come from it was us that penetrated their genes with ours not the other way round. Yes invasion,and I have to say, to get off the subject. "spears vs bow and arrow?" have you ever seen speer throwing? I know which one I'd rather have shot at me. I actually watch on tv just last week, " primitive games" where the crazy engish run around with spears and arrows on a course.. the two winners were one with bow and arrow and one with " australian style spear with woomera" and he came to australia to copy the throwing style to perfect his skills. right dead centre of the bulls eye.
agriculture, fire? and land management animal management with indigenous australians?
Boundaries. all indigenous tribes have very strict land boundaries that the stupid british failed to comprehend. Trade there was much trade between tribes.
I'm flabbergasted.
Three things that indigenous australians need.
Sovereignty, Power of veto, and massive compensation.
That's what this country needs to begin to put things right. No apology just do the right thing.
Cheers Neil P.S. had to edit out 40 good words.N
Posted by neilium, Friday, 6 July 2007 10:48:50 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
According to Holden, culture "has no validity after the loss of the original environment it evolved out of".

Really? Then why do I keep hearing about how Australia is a country founded on Judeo-Christian and British traditions that we must all now observe?

It would be fairly accurate to describe the experience of the people who arrived with the First Fleet (and subsequent immigrants) to be a total "loss of the original environment" from which their cultures evolved. They might as well have gone to Mars, for all that 18th, 19th and even much of 20th century Australia resembled their culture's "original environment".

Therefore, by Holden's definition, the following are "invalid" cultural activities in Australia: Christmas, New Year's Day, Easter, Queen's Birthday, cricket, drinking alcohol, orchestral music and football. If you want to do any of those things, you should go back to the "original environment" in which those cultural practices evolved.

The logical conclusion of Holden's premise is that we should all don ochre and a loincloth because, by his argument, we've all lost the original environment of our respective cultures in this land.

Unless, as I strongly suspect, Holden's original claim is nonsense...along with all the other claims he bases upon it.
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 6 July 2007 11:25:42 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
The trouble with this topic (like some others) is that the real issues will get lost (as usual) in political correctness drowning out any rational debate. It will descend (as it has already started to do) into empty political correct rhetoric.
Certainly, the clash between culture of the colonizing British and that of the indigenous people resulted in the latter suffering great loss. But both cultures were valid for their own people. Both had their good points and both their bad points - neither was inherently bad.
But let us get real! It is just as valid to be critical of behaviours and attitudes of the indigenous people as it is to be critical of those of the people who settled here after 1788. And let us look at practical matters.
As to political correctness I defer to Daniel Barenboim who said, in effect, that to talk in politically correct terms allows one to take the easy way out by not having to actually do the hard work of reasoning through to one's own conclusion and to then have to defend it if criticised for it - that takes a bit of courage.
When one has to actually reason through to one's own conclusion (rather that taking the safe politically correct line) one often has to acknowledge matters with which one is uncomfortable.
The article had thinsg I agreed with and things I disagreed with. But it was honest and courageous and raised issues that should be debated. Pauline hansen was a symptom of suppression of a debate by the politicaly correct
Posted by Plaza-Toro, Friday, 6 July 2007 11:29:40 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
"Political correctness is a denial of free speech" (Cath Gunn). I tend to agree.
You do not become indigenous by living among indigenous people. They may offer you the honour of becoming part of their community and calling you 'brother' or 'sister' but that is something very different from actually being aboriginal. The difference was nicely stated at a funeral I once attended for the late Hugh Bray. The initial greeting was given in the Kaurna language and his kinship with them was acknowledged but he was not considered to be an 'indigenous' person even by those who acknowledged kinship.
That's my two posts for the day so the rest of you can have a field day bashing me now. It will make a change from political correctness.
Posted by Communicat, Friday, 6 July 2007 11:47:02 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
Remember, most of the babies removed had fairer skins than their mothers. There is no evidence that the mothers set out to have white babies.

It is my understanding there was not much interest in removing true black babies.

These people have been taught by their whites masters that sexual abuseand rape of young children is O.K..

We might not like to admit it but this government has gone way back to a very old method of dealing with our indigneous community. Back to the 18 and 19 century. We only need pictures of blacks joined together by neck yokes and chains.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

People whoever they are have the right to choose their own destinies. Our role shold be to ensure they have choices.

Things have changed for these people. There are many educated indigneous today.

I know my views do not fit in with this article.
Posted by Flo, Friday, 6 July 2007 12:20:05 PM
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
Give the people the tools and control of the services to care for themselves, plan in self sufficiency and get out of the way. Give the aboriginals the responsibility of self, the opportunity to earn self, and community respect and success by their own standards. Never mind with endless apologies or needing to have sympathy for a predicament initiated by Government actions and failed inactions.
No people can feel or be at 100% when "managed" by policy.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 6 July 2007 12:48:26 PM
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
Holden’s facade of concern doesn’t disguise the purpose of his diatribe.

1. Holden assumes all Indigenous people were nomadic tribes technologically inhibited by the Dreamtime. “Before any society can become complex it must have domestic animals and agriculture to be able to stay in the one place so that trades can then evolve.” He’s never heard e.g. of the Gunditjmara of South-western Victoria? These people lived in stone houses and developed a sophisticated system of acquaculture and eel farming. They constructed stone dams and weirs to create ponds, channels and linked wetlands in which they bred short-fin eels and other fish. They wove baskets to harvest their catch and bartered the surplus. No “driving the megafauna to extinction” there Mr Holden.

2. Holden’s rationalisation of dispossession is pure ideology. It was only ‘gradually’ seen as unjust, he says. Those who died in massacres and those who fought in the Eumeralla wars probably realised their dispossession quite swiftly. To claim “There was no invasion” is to deny the bleeding obvious, notwithstanding Holden’s mealy-mouthed euphemism: “By 1788 they already had more than their fair share of undisturbed time.” Really!

3. Holden’s Chinese ‘formula’ – get job, mortgage, pay-it-off and become a stakeholder - is disingenuous. The Chinese who came in their many tens of thousands in the nineteenth century were so harassed and excluded that the majority went back to China.

4. Holden’s appeal to racial purity is malevolent: “…the number who have identified themselves as Aborigines but who are in fact 50 per cent or less Aborigine.” 50% of what? Who ever heard a ‘white’ man referred to as ‘half-caste’? “Only a minority today look anything like those in photos taken in the 1890s.” No leg-irons and neck-chains?

5. The graphic focus on alcohol-fuelled sexual abuse of children and the bashing of women, and anarchy in the heart of Sydney, will appeal to the rednecks on OLO but it’s just an excuse to introduce Holden’s ultimate solution to his self-defined ‘Indigenous problem’: they must “leave their communities to be absorbed as individuals into the mainstream”.

So neat and final.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 6 July 2007 12:59:29 PM
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
We are hearing a lot of negativity from people like Frankgol and his ilk. What therefore are your solutions to the problems. How about about it if you are so smart.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 6 July 2007 2:02:14 PM
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
This has to be the silliest and most ignorant article I've read on this subject yet. Little wonder it appeals to some of our sillier and more ignorant commentators.

Many thanks to Mercurius, FrankGol and others for pointing out some of Holden's more glaring deficiencies.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 6 July 2007 2:03:51 PM
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
I would like to see all schools in Aboriginal communities providing a fruit and protein breakfast and a cooked meal at lunchtime for the children. I think that this would encourage the children to go to school and it would ensure that they had a fighting chance of being able to concentrate on their work. I don't see this as paternalism because I grew up in England after the war and we had good cooked meals at school each day, served in a civilised manner at a table with knives and forks. The meals could be prepared and served by women from the community. This would give those local women their own income.
I'd also like to see all Australian schools use the sort of basic workbooks that are used successfully in Indonesian schools. These workbooks teach children basic skills while also promoting community values like respecting your parents, picking up garbage, etc. Our Aussie education system is too ramshackle. And we are much too vulnerable to educational fads like "whole language" which have damaged a whole generation of Australians, including Aboriginal Australians.
What I would not like would be for Aboriginal people to lose those characteristics that make them very valuable role models for the rest of us - their small-town genuine concern for other people, their different way of looking at situations, etc. I have been shown real kindness by Aboriginal people working in my local community and it would be a great loss if we "educated" these Aboriginal people into adopting the Macdonald-talk that passes for conversation in a growing number of Australian workplaces.
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Friday, 6 July 2007 2:09:30 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
Forgive the pun, but its hard to be totally black and white on this issue.

The 'apology' agenda is partly symbolic, enabling people to forgive and move forward - as is often the case after conflict or trauma. But, more so, it has legal implications. Apology means guilt, which leads to the notion of restoration, which in today's parlance, means financial compensation for wrongs. That's the real backbone behind the political refusal to apologise.

But, much as the invasion of Australia was extraordinarily brutal and doggedly denied self determination to Aboriginal people, it is hard to imagine that the two cultures, juxtaposed, could co-exist in such a way that Aboriginal people could survive in an ideal state, or even a very happy state. Our own culture is so utterly dominant and pervasive.

That juxtaposition should never be used as a rationale for excusing past wrongs, or for forced integration, it is just a sad fact.

As for sympathy... I concur with the author on this point. Just look at our own society’s forlorn attempts at gaining happiness and the horrendous burden we impose on the planet’s living environment and its indigenous peoples. We should look honestly into a mirror before we, self righteously, throw sympathy around.
Posted by gecko, Friday, 6 July 2007 2:18:26 PM
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
Shame on me!, I haven't read Holden's article.

If his premise is as the title suggests; 'that nobody is to blame,....it just happened'! Well, that will do nicely, I need go no further...

'IT' does NOT 'just happen'.What utter tripe!

Absolution will not occur no matter how skillful the reasoning that 'it wasn't my fault'.

Rap is rap. (With a silent C)
Posted by Ginx, Friday, 6 July 2007 3:45:20 PM
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
MMM I smell, The Australian League Of Rights."(exclamation marks x 3) they are not allowed apparently. I wonder how the rulers of this forum would feel if they had freedom?"
Back to the actual post.

They get their amazing philosophical views in edgeways everywhere they can vis a vis Hanson, and indigenous cannibalism etc. poor woman.She didn't deserve to be led up the garden path by 'the citizens electoral council' (same people different name)
Be careful who you listen to.
I could be wong but I'm white.
All this talk about 'political correctness' Is this the new bashing word? I haven't seen any sign of it here, If critics of the article were politically correct it would follow that the majority of australians and the govt, are sympathetic to the needs of indigenous australians, and of course this is hogwash! racism against indigenous australians is endemic in our white society at the very least by the lack of historic truth for starters, either in our education system or our history books made available to the general public and school students. The only difference in the racism seen in individuals are styles of comment divided by social boundaries. the higher educated say it differently than the less than.
I can remember Mick Mansell V Hawkie (icon of egomania) on abc tv. Prior to 1988, Mansell say's " we'll take the top half, you have the bottom half, make the border Brisbane to Broome" Hawkies says something like.. in your dreams etc.. Mansell " well it was good enough for Menzies to give it to the Japs in WWII" ( the brisbane line)
I wished and wished that it would happen.
Hawkie also said.. " there will not be a first fleet landing reenactment" of course Mansell made sure he was wrong there..
Mick for PM... I know what he'd do with the league.
Cheers Neil
Posted by neilium, Friday, 6 July 2007 4:22:55 PM
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
There is no objection to people being critical of the article and there is no disagreement re sympathy for the needs of aboriginal Australians. The objection is to the intemperate manner some of the critics make their points and the ad hominem attacks on anyone who is bold enough not to agree with the emotional postings of those attacking the article. Emotional postings add nothing to the debate nor does flinging accusations of people being League of Rights. The aboriginal peoples’ problems are not going to be solved unless there is a mature approach and mature discussion.
And you obviously didn’t understand the subtleties of the reference to Pauline Hansen. It was not approving her, far from it. The reason Pauline Hansen achieved such a large following was that the political correctness of the politicians and the Media stifled all discussion of community concerns about a number of issues, including immigration, for several years. Her prominence was a symptom of that suppression. This is a democracy after all and we are entitled to debate all these matters. If debate on those matters had not been stifled there would not have been so much concern and Pauline Hansen would never have been heard of.
As for there being “all this talk of political correctness” – I can only see two out of 16 postings mentioning it. Having said that, most people in the discussion so far have made reasoned and unemotional discussion points without using the intimidatory and immature tactic of attacking postings/posters with which they disagree or accusing people of being League of Rights.
But I suppose that in democracy, which can only exist because there are people who do stand against political correctness, there is room for emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks although what weight, if any, such arguments are given by is a matter of debate
Posted by Plaza-Toro, Friday, 6 July 2007 5:40:24 PM
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
Gol raises some correct factors, which the author got wrong. Gol is not quibbling; he is correcting some errors made by the author, which are just untrue. We are not required to do anything about it on OLO nor are we required to offer answers but we could insist that the authors get their facts right.

I have another one to add Gol and that is the aquaculture fish-trapping system they used on the Georges River: South of Sydney. In this system of harvesting fish, they relied on tides and the stone walls filled with water and fish at high tide, as the tide went out, they put rocks "over the gates to filter the fish in the trap. This is clever technology.

Holden said:

"Our Indigenous people were described by the early navigators as being exceptionally primitive and, by deduction, stupid."

Wrong.

"These people may truly be said to be in the pure state of nature, and may appear to some to be the most wretched upon the earth; but in reality they are far happier than ... we Europeans." Captain Cook 1768

http://www.orac.net.au/~mhumphry/aborigin.html

Holden discredits our early navigators who were much more enlightened and incisive than he is on anthropology.

Holden said:

"By 1788, Indigenous Australians and Europeans had the same intellectual potential but their brains had some very different neural networking".

Wrong again. It had nothing to do with "neural networking" and everything to do with environmental and cultural difference.

Holden mentions Asians to further confuse the matter. What the...? Is this another racist notion? Most biological scientists of any merit have dismissed these racist notions of intelligence.

I agree with communicat again on the "sorry vs pity" thing: this racist rubbish is not helpful at all. We are not subscribing to pshycological blackmail, we could be attempting to communicate with Aboriginal people better than we are.

No one likes child abuse, if child abuse with alcohol is a problem, then authorities need sensible strategies that are not reactionary and that actually work.

It helps to get your facts right first.
Posted by saintfletcher, Friday, 6 July 2007 5:45:00 PM
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
Where to start.....so much bad karma in Brian Holdens article.

His assertion that began with " Before any society can become complex..". I think Brian makes a mistake by identifying "society" with technology.

Understanding the many issues at question here begins with the recognition of the complexities of indigenous cultures, and the fact that their social system was/is every bit as complete as 'ours'.

Others have pointed out lots of other silliness in the article, but I'll make one observation in the authors favour. In para 1, Brian says " The Dreamtime also extended a powerful inhibition to experimentation." I can't really vouch for this statements validity, but am happy to suggest that any knowledge system, or any creation story that is not constantly changing to incorporate new observations and understandings is likely to inhibit progress.
Posted by palimpsest, Friday, 6 July 2007 8:41:53 PM
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
'While acknowledging the inevitability of colonisation, the activists should also acknowledge that the Aborigines were fortunate that it was 18th century England which did the colonising. They would have been enslaved and worked to death if it had been 16th century Spain.'

Actually, they were enslaved and worked to death. The Woppaburra of Great Keppel were virtually annihilated. Below is a URL address for those who care to educate themselves.

http://www.api-network.com/main/index.php?apply=scholars&webpage=default&flexedit=&flex_password=&menu_label=&menuID=homely&menubox=&scholar=43
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 7 July 2007 1:59:53 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
At some point in time we all must be released from our collective histories and be allowed to get on with the job at hand. There is no point in recognizing for the thousandth time the historical circumstance of the arrival of the white man and the impact on the aboriginal people if that same collective white social influence is still 'trying to find ways to manage the aboriginal issue'. Australia must step back and allow the aboriginal to grow and develop by their own lights. Give them the tools to achieve their own success and stop holding the White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian mirror up to them to idealise. If we are to focus on blame there is plenty to go around. The he said she said interracial intrasocial arguing is not productive.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 7 July 2007 7:42:45 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
It's a bit much expecting the author to get his facts straight when the piece is clearly not a facts-based, organised series of arguments leading to a coherent conclusion.

It's a disconnected and unrelated collection of dot point bits of folk wisdom. None of his assertions are considered in any detail and as others here have pointed out, most of it is just plain wrong.

Good on poor old Holden for trying, but it's not exactly what you'd call an informed opinion.
Posted by chainsmoker, Saturday, 7 July 2007 9:34:24 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
Whilst I do not prophess to b a legal expert,
my simple understanding of the relevant law is as follows:

1. The militant sea-rogues of the crown were required by their own law, as it stood @ the time, to either make a "Declaration of War" against the Original Australians or alternatively to create a "Treaty."

Instead, they "cooked" up some pseudo science,
(against the stringent protests of fine scientific minds of the period)
& classified the Original Australian people as animals, and formalised this in various revisions of the "Flora & Fauna Act."
(I associate this with the same sort of pseudo science deployed to "nay-say" against the reality of *Global Warming* and the intrinsic dangers of the use of U235 Enrichment Waste Munitions on civilian populations & unborn babes.)

Large tracts of Australia were ruled off as lawless zones & by co-incidence a considerable amount of "Dalek" like extermination allegedly occurred therein.
(Didn't they stuff the last Tasmanian and put her body in a museum glass case?)

It is no surprise to me that despite the fact that the *Democratic Will* of the Australian People supported the re-patriation of the Jews on mass to Northern W.A. pre the Holocaust,
that the crown & also their zionist extremist mates denied them,
allegedly fearing a "Lands Rights" precedent,
despite the best efforts of the representing "Rusky" Politician.
(Oh for a game of chess & some cranberries in a down town Moscow park. A beautiful people with much to offer in my view, but alas, I digress)

In legal terms the crown is timeless & an apology doesn't cut the mustard.
As for *Lizzy Winza* nothing short of a "no-knickers" stage dive is acceptable in my view.
She is an individual in a democracy and has as much right and obligation to speak out on matters pertaining to Human Rights as the rest of us & if not,
let her b "legally beheaded" in the High Court for Genocide & Sovereignty returned.

The Solution in the here & now:
PREFERENCE THE GREENS
*BROWNY* 4 PREZ!
Posted by AJLeBreton, Saturday, 7 July 2007 12:22:33 PM
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
AJLeBreton

Anyone who believes the dumb unscientific theory of evolution could not help but to come up with the same answers as the scientist did back then. If evolution was true then nearly all of us are cannibals!
Posted by runner, Saturday, 7 July 2007 1:11:38 PM
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
I would give preference to the Elder women of the communities. They have a clearer insight to the difficulties of their families, they would also wish for the betterment of those families.
The so called Activists have vested interests in keeping the situation at boiling point, they can do more harm than good.
Listen to the Grandmothers,hear what they say.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 7 July 2007 2:40:55 PM
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
Henry Reynolds has done some great work in uncovering alot of what was covered up. Just look at the Tasmanian Aboriginals. They were virtuallly wiped out, This would have happened on the mainland too had the expanse of land not been so big. Instead it took a long time before the contact became enough to inringe on white Australia.
Yes there were thousands of chinese, there were Germans aswell from the late 1800's.
However, from Phiilip to Macquarie (from after 1822 it became a very consevative view that took over) the instructions given were "to open an intercourse with the Natives"..They were not to be disturbed or injured and it was expected the white perpetrators would be punished.
check out:
Auchmuty/1810-30, in FK Crowley(ed), 'A New History of Australia' (Melb, 1974), p50-59.)
Also the notion of uncivilised because they did not farm the land European style or had 'property' as in lots of land, is ugh. They fished, they had boundaries and they also had trade. Coastal tribes traded in commonplaces their goods for inland tribal finds. when the comments are made that this is not civilised, i cannot understand why. To have been here for so long must indicate some sort of order to things? ithink that they would have been enslaved a lot more if the decision to establish a penal colony (with possibilities)here had happened earlier, say when the American collonies were not in revolt? Slavery was out, Britian did not want that image hence the instructions to Governors. Britain was i a global expansion time and revolutions abounded, they had lost the Am.Colonies to being racist thugs so why would they risk it here? Truth is that once contact really started to progress and the fight for land and resources became intense by the 1820's you could say there was a racial war. This is such a hard issue.
Then of course there is alcohol. Was this used as a tool to wipe them out or is that conspiracy? I'd be interested in any thoughts and clarrification guys!
Go-mum!
Posted by go-mum!, Saturday, 7 July 2007 2:52:39 PM
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
I liked Dealing with the Mob's ideas that get back to the basics. I also noted the truth that white society dominates over everything else. I've combined these precepts to come up with a few specific ideas that might be useful. Admittedly, they're made from a distance.

• To combat personal hygiene problems, create opportunities for Aboriginal kids to swim in either chlorinated pools or made-made waterholes. This will probably do as much as anything to rid the kids of ear and eye infections, in particular.

• We know how good Aboriginals are as athletes, but how about creating opportunities in occupations and activities where Aboriginals are similarly proficient? Maybe as tour guides, bush-tucker collectors, farmers and cooks etc. Why not set up “sanctuaries” where Aboriginals can both conserve their natural environment and make a crust doing their traditional activities if they want? This could be set up with the help of industry or other benefactors. Alternatively, Aboriginals could travel to other parts of Oz to do seasonal work and return home to their traditional lands to “recharge the batteries”.

• If policing is beefed up in Aboriginal communities, petrol sniffing should be made an offence which has a punishment attached to it. The regimes should be set up so that young Aboriginals are corralled toward doing something more productive and uplifting with their time. This has to be done via some combination of carrot and stick. The decision to adopt the initiative would be left to the individual communities themselves but must depend on what works.

• Why not set up a form of TAFE (in partnership with white administrators) where young Aboriginals can learn things that will be useful in future (eg cooking classes for bush tucker foods, as park rangers etc)? I imagine this sort of thing has been tried before, but it might start getting traction, especially if Aboriginals can see their way through the maze they're currently in. The benefit is that they are building on what they're naturally good at and there are some extra challenges in there that they wouldn’t have had before.
Posted by RobP, Saturday, 7 July 2007 3:28:18 PM
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
Michael Mansell's alleged reference to the Brisbane Line (neilium, Friday, 6 July 2007 4:22:55 PM) is an apt illustration of how oft-repeated myths become 'historical facts'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Line
Posted by Admiral von Schneider, Saturday, 7 July 2007 5:46:50 PM
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
aqvariv

Thank you for common sense. I am one of the invaders - arrive in Oz from England in 1952. But who am I? A Celt, an Anglo-Saxon, a Norseman, a Norman? There seems to be no profit in tracing back "legitimacy" of ownership. How can we as humans level the playing field of opportunity? That is the question.
Posted by Fencepost, Saturday, 7 July 2007 6:47:08 PM
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
Things don’t change for the Aboriginal children because whilst adults are arguing, nothing ever gets done.

The real question that has to be asked is how things got this bad? Surely the Aboriginal people have spoken out in numbers, surely good white people have tried to help and protect them. Why are issues not being resolved and matters addressed then?

These situations/problems arise because our system is designed only to come into action when there is a crisis/disaster/death. If our Government has intervened then things must be really bad!

At the same time that they fix up law and order they need to fix up the Education system for our children and in particular to cater for different children's different needs. Aboriginal children have unique needs and they have been provided with disadvantaged schools in disadvantaged areas. How are they ever going to succeed? How can that possibly be fair? How long would you be able to keep your head up if you couldn’t see a light in the tunnel at the other end?

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserver better
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 7 July 2007 8:09:58 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
A good article, by an author with the courage to put his name to a piece largely lacking political correctness. Pretty well every ethnic group in the world at some time in its history has survived the generally brutal ingress of conquerors - by intergration, and by absorbing new superior cultures and customs. The Australian aborigines have no special claim to the continent of Australia simply by virtue of being here first. Even as I write, the present Australian way of life is being permanently changed by contact with stronger foreign ethnic groups - eg Chinese - and, like the Aborigines, we too will have to integrate and adjust accordingly as we did with the post WW2 europeans. Both Victorian England, (along with the British Empire of my youth) and frontier America have gone -changed beyond recognition. The Australin aborigines will find no solution in alcohol, wife bashing, or sexually abusing their children. If there is a solution at all, which I very much doubt, that solution will have to include intermarriage, education, and finally social integration. There is no viable alternative. Nothing has yet, or ever will be, solved by on-going attempts to create an aboriginal society within the general australian society. If they are to survive at all, Aboriginals must realise that their pre-european history is just that - history.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Saturday, 7 July 2007 11:30:18 PM
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
I am not at all surprised by the opinions expressed in the article and some of the comments. It accurately expresses an emotive hostility towards Aboriginal people that is very common. What I am surprised about is that the editors of this forum allowed it to go up, not because of its contraversial opinion but because of its total lack of academic or journalistic integrity. Every point made is a prejudiced adherence to one particular point of view in some hypothetical academic debates with no evidence at all one way or another connected to scientific anthropology or Aboriginal culture.

The word limit prevents a serious rebuttal, but in very broad terms, please consider.

pre-1788 Aboriginal society, whatever it was, existed for a long time in a sustainable way with plenty of non-work time for artistic and cultural pursuits.

Modern, "civilised" Australian society is a new phenomenon, as is industrialised society around the globe. This new society has systematicalyy polluted our air, water and soil and now we are cooking ourselves with greenhouse gasses. Everybody is working very hard and rarely gets time for anything except resting from work, and suffering cancers, heart diseases and mental health disorders. Sperm counts in the industrialised nations are plumetting.

Our civilisation is a dysfunctional devolution that of itself is the single greatest threat to our own survival as a species.

If we do not radically change the nature of our "civilisation" then we are all stuffed.

And secondly, in 1788, British society was largely illiterate, was just discovering a vaccination for smallpox, used leaches in medical practice and the city of London was a filthy stinking den of all kinds of infection because of lack of education and infrastructure about sanitation. Australian Aborigines were healthy and free. Joseph Banks comments on their health and athleticism in his journal of the endeavour voyage. Yet Banks, and the author of this article still persist in notions of cultural superiority.
Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 8 July 2007 4:23:10 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
King Canute you forget the very high mortality rate among indigenous people in 1788, especially the infant mortality rate.
The conditions in the UK were certainly less than idyllic for the masses but were the conditions idyllic for any indigenous person? Was their wandering lifestyle really to be envied?
It can be viewed romantically, just as the UK situation can be viewed with horror. The reality is probably somewhere in between for both groups. We should however not use some romantic view of the past to suggest that indigenous people were 'better off' - the reality is that they had problems, plenty of problems in fact. The notion that they somehow had something good which should have been preserved and that all would have been well without the 'invasion' is nonsense.
Posted by Communicat, Sunday, 8 July 2007 5:18:19 PM
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
Seems to me that King Canute is aptly named. You are pushing against the tide mate and it is not going to stop for you or anyone else. There have been some very pragmatic comments made on this theme and they need to be taken notice of. It is no good waiting for the white master to come up with solutions to your problems. You have waited in vain for forty years for this to happen. It is up to the tribal elders to grasp the nettle and take whatever is good that the white man has to offer, cast aside those things have been your own undoing and get on with it.

I will be standing on the sidelines barracking for you, but there is really nothing more that I can do but give you encouragement.
Posted by VK3AUU, Sunday, 8 July 2007 5:41:45 PM
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
Sympathy is not needed and there was a time when an apology - saying sorry - would have made all the difference. That time sadly has gone.

There is no chance of addressing the content of this article enough to the issue justice so only a thought or two.

"The decisions of the past were the best we were capable of at the time." I was interested in this statement as it seems to be based on the belief that 'the people' agree with the decisions of leaders. Monthly Governments in Australia introduce laws that half those that vote on it have never read.

Right now many people are completely disillusioned by the decisions of the Government of today, the anti-war protests are just one example. Even quite dramatic, large, public displays have little or no impact.

There is blame to be placed and there is plenty to apologise for.
Posted by Debby doesnt do it for free, Sunday, 8 July 2007 6:31:08 PM
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
"The bow and arrow was more accurate than the spear and woomera. Otherwise, the North American native was not technologically more advanced than the Australian native." - healthwatcher

It is also true nomads, garden states and city states would have different civic and religious systems. [A garden state is a transitionary stage where people settle for a protracted but not permanent time. In the Middle East thread there were garden states for 12,000, before Sumer.]

Aboriginals are born into a Western society, which, today, will accept them. As such, as babies, they are not at odds with the dominant culture. In their families and through kin association oppositional attitudes develop.

Stopping the clock at 1788 is not feasible. Back then, for Anglo-Westerners, the social relationships between the factory fodder and the gentele class was different, as were many legal conventions. It is gone, for the occupiers and it is gone for the occupied.

One can respect and keep alive traditions of by-gone days, as say Scottish Clans do, but one cannot go back in time. All Australians need to progress in the twenty-fist century.

Having aboriginal families reinforce the idea, that the next generation really belong to an earlier century does not help, because they dont. We all are here, now.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 8 July 2007 8:06:17 PM
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
"The bow and arrow was more accurate than the spear and woomera. Otherwise, the North American native was not technologically more advanced than the Australian native." - healthwatcher

It is also true nomads, garden states and city states would have different civic and religious systems. [A garden state is a transitionary stage where people settle for a protracted but not permanent time. In the Middle East thread there were garden states for 12,000 years, before Sumer.]

Aboriginals are born into a Western society, which, today, will accept them. As such, as babies, they are not at odds with the dominant culture. In their families and through kin association oppositional attitudes develop.

Stopping the clock at 1788 is not feasible. Back then, for Anglo-Westerners, the social relationships between the factory fodder and the gentele class was different, as were many legal conventions. It is gone, for the occupiers and it is gone for the occupied.

One can respect and keep alive traditions of by-gone days, as say Scottish Clans do, but one cannot go back in time. All Australians need to progress in the twenty-fist century.

Having aboriginal families reinforce the idea, that the next generation really belong to an earlier century does not help, because they dont. We all are here, now.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 8 July 2007 8:06:30 PM
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
1788
Why is there so often a blanket dismissal of Aboriginal culture as a return to 1788? Why do people think Aboriginal culture has stopped there and not developed over 200 years like English culture has?
Contemporary culture in Arnhem land or Redfern is a reality right here right now, not in 1788 or in museums.

Nomads
I always get a chuckle when Aboriginal society is refered to as nomadic. For thousands of years people lived in in this continent within stable tribal estates, where generation after generation they were born and buried in the same place. Then along came these people from the other side of the world who move house every few years as their job changes and they call Aborigines nomadic? Most Australian's extended families are scattered all over the globe as a result of our nomadic existance for the last several generations

The megafauna (mentioned in the article).
Tim Flannery, who came up with the idea that the big wombats were hunted into extinction, emphasised that he had no idea what really happened to the animals and he just had a hypothesis. The part of Flannery's hypothisis that is always ignored is that thousands of years ago humans learnt from the mistake and instituted environmental protection laws including cull limits that explains the ecological sustainability of Aboriginal culture for so long.
But he, nor anyone else knows really.
Recently, with all the climate change research going on, it has been found that their was major climatic change occuring at the time of the megafauna's dissapearence and that has now become the flavour of the month hypothesis discussed byt those experts who haven't really got a clue.

Too many unproven theories by people who don't really know are being used to cloak and justify an underlying psychological hostility to Aboriginality which has, unfortunately, been a big part of our national character.
Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 8 July 2007 8:50:27 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
Talk about set the cat amongst the pigeons! This has practically got it all, hasnt it? Contentiousness. Radical claims and counter claims. Ignorance. Racism. Apologists for each and every viewpoint....except the sound of a clear voice from those whose fate we so blithely discuss, dissect and otherwise dismiss.
I'm a white anglo saxon male, just turned fifty. I've had the genuine privilege throughout the course of my life to date to have enjoyed the company of aboriginal australians, chinese, and many others. We ARE an inherently racist society, although we furiously claim otherwise. This has been subtly and not so subtly enhanced and even enforced throughout our history as a nation. Many things have been done. Of these, some have been truly horrendous. If they happend today, then heads would roll throughout our society. We've come a long way....but there remains a very long way to go. We made the mess. We created the ghettoised townships and thirdworld lean-tos where we confined our darker hued citizens and compatriots. An apology WOULD make a difference...it may or may not involve a degree of financial restitution to create sustainable infrastructure and institutions to deliver the benefits...in these supposed boomtimes we can afford it after all, so we should get over the angst about that issue. The result would be that, in the eyes of the world, we as a nation would enjoy a net increase in goodwill, tourism, and trade.....so whats stopping us? Why cant we simply do the right thing? Its only good manners at the end of the day.
Posted by omygodnoitsitsitsyou, Monday, 9 July 2007 1:52:59 PM
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
Firstly a couple of bizzarre quotes from the article which I challenge anybody to try and explain.

"The Dreamtime also exerted a powerful inhibition to experimentation."

"By 1788, Indigenous Australians and Europeans had the same intellectual potential but their brains had some very different neural networking."

Then some comments on some other quotes.

"As this continent’s occupants were tribal, a tribe moved over a loosely defined range of land. In stark contrast, the colonists had a strong concept of an individual’s title to a measured allotment of land."

The following is a link to a map of Aboriginal tribal boundaries (you can even find the tribal area that you live in)http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/orig/tindale/boundaries_intro.htm

"While acknowledging the inevitability of colonisation, the activists should also acknowledge that the Aborigines were fortunate that it was 18th century England which did the colonising. They would have been enslaved and worked to death if it had been 16th century Spain."

This link (PDF) is to the Queensland legislation that forced every Aboriginal person in Queensland either onto a reserve or onto a farm as an unpaid labourer (slave)
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/qld5_doc_1897.pdf

"Sea-faring canoes from Indonesia were touching the north coast maybe 1,000 years ago. These people saw no point in leaving their fertile islands for semi-arid land. Eventually people who had the technical capacity to come in from the south would be arriving - and when they did, they would be colonising the place."

This link discusses the ancient trade with the Macassans.
http://aboriginalrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/macassancrew

Trade routes ran from Australia into Asia and beyond prior to Cook, for thousands of years without anyone trying to colonise anyone elses territory - just trade.

which brings us to the question of invasion.

The article states
"The January 26, 1788 is referred to by some as Invasion Day. That label is potentially divisive. There was no invasion. When Hitler’s armies crossed into Poland under orders to destroy every trace of the administrative infrastructure: that was an invasion."

A war by any other name would smell the same.
http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/australias-hidden-history/
Posted by King Canute, Monday, 9 July 2007 8:08:48 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
Dear Brian , You are having a lend of us .

White invaders ,yes Invaders, Our forebears ,knew exactly what they were doing -they were and are onto a good thing, plenty of resources, few, semi -illiterate and relatively powerless rightfull owners to overrun, and by fair or foul we are going to hang onto what we have got hold of .

Howard and Brough's Divide and Conquer "Task Force" are not really interested in law and order otherwise they would get a swag of the Federal Police back from overseas immediately to lend a very usefull hand as they have experience with Indigenous Communities .

On Aboriginal Intelligence , in the 1830's that famous Australian Explorer ,Major Mitchell when exploring Victoria, said in his diary, that his black guide was extremely intelligent and turned to him ahead of others for counsel and company .

David Unaipon [dec], the bloke on the $50.00 note and many other Aboriginal People have shown their many talents in many fields all over Australia .They are an untapped resource of great promise for them and us .

Does the Government owe them an Apology for our apathy - too right they do .

Leunig's historic cartoon in the "Age" last Saturday says it all.
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 9 July 2007 9:11:46 PM
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
This talk of invaders and colonialisation from a people developed from and by colonialisation and repeated invasion. The original Celtic tribes were assumed by the Norse, the Angles, the Saxons, the Normans, and the Romans. The Moors after invading Spain gave it thought, and later the Spanish and Germans had a go. Though they both failed. Makes one wonder how Great Britain became Great Britain given that if anyone should be a land of victims it ought to be Great Britain. Perhaps it was called Great Britain because it was a great place to invade. Just a thought. And how many Australians are of the invaders and how many are from those who were dragged here in chains and simply had to make do and get on with life and living. Just another thought for the guilt trippers.
Mans been moving around the globe since Cain and Able and the inevitable clashes of civilisations are part and parcel of the history of man. The trouble with the later migrations in my mind especially with the Americas and Australia is that instead of assuming the native peoples, they were isolated, placed on reserves. This has been shown manifest in the long standing acrimony between aboriginals and "occupiers" and the maintenance of such thinking 200 years on after the fact in Australia and the Americas including what was the Spanish colonies.
Perhaps the best way to redress this divide would be to offer the Aboriginals housing allotments with in their original tribal lands among the rest of the people of Australia instead of maintaining the isolationist practice of reserves.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 1:26:08 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
Fencepost,

Thank you for your comments on British genetic diversity. Interestingly a couple of recently published studies (The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story, Stephen Oppenheimer; Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of our Tribal History) have both concluded that the predominant genetic source for the British Isles is the ancient Britons. The various invaders (Romans, north Germans, Vikings, and Normans) haven't contributed a great deal to the gene pool. The Angles and the Saxons - despite having given us basic grammar and much of the vocabulary of the language, and the name of the place and the people - only make up a couple of percent of the gene pool. So as Fencepost says, we modern-day Brits are an absolute hodge-podge with a great tradition of mixing genes together. I have no idea what this really means, but it is interesting. Perhaps the message is: blend or dissapear.

Runner, how do you manage to work your disbelief in evolution into every thread?
Posted by Reynard, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 10:01:49 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
kartiya jim,

The invaders were invaded by the Norman French in 1066 and Nomandy itself in 911. The Italian tribes invaded Rome, Rome took Greek and Eyptian territory and Alexander the Great establsied the broad foot print of Greek/Macedonnian society. Invasion happens.

If the Anglo~Celts left tomorrow and the West took a hands of Australia approach, the remaining people would speaking Indonesian in no time.

With invasions come the opportunity for cross-accrulturation and technology transfer. So, its not all bad.

King Canute,

I guess I have to have admit having a townhouse in Redfern and a country estate [Wagga Wagga for many], would represent a change in culture.

1788:

Else put, my original point was that a Scotish clan cannot exist in the way it once did and stand against the steamroller of history. But traditions can be respected and preserved as some level for those who are interested in kilts and sword dances. Ditto for aboriginal clan society.

Having an enclave of familialism, kinship structures and tribalism perpetually set against the dominant nation state technology-based culture is just not going to let the sore heal. Both parties have a responsibility to fuse to the next society, which is likely directed by globalisation.

Nomads:

Nomad is in the same class as city-state or nation-state, being different than migration. There were three waves of immigrants into Australia, between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago, making all them immigrants and the latter two groups black skinned invaders, who walked downed the coast line to Australia's north, when ocean water levels were lower than today. Europeans were the third wave
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 12:16:17 PM
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
Oliver, I challenge you to produce one grain of evidence to support your hypothesis.....

"There were three waves of immigrants into Australia, between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago, making all them immigrants and the latter two groups black skinned invaders, who walked downed the coast line to Australia's north, when ocean water levels were lower than today. Europeans were the third wave"

Some non Aboriginal person made this up in their mind and you are presenting it as fact.
Carbon dating shows people were here over 150,000 years ago, thus debunking the "out of Africa" theory/myth.
This notion of Australia being previously invaded and colonised, which for some reason is a common story, is just a sick ideological fantasy to legitimise attitudes of cultural superiority. There is no evidence at all for it - prove me wrong!
(I have issued this challenge before and got a plethora of links to someone or other who reckons its true, but no archaeological or historical evidence of any sort has been produced to date).

Again I ask the proponents of these ridiculous theories, especially the author of the article who rattled off many "facts"......

If you know of no evidence for these things, and you can find no evidence, then please examine yourselves as to why you assert this information with such confidence of its accuracy. Why do you need it to be true?
Posted by King Canute, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 1:05:01 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
And furthermore, Oliver, regardless of whether you can find any evidence for immigration of the type you claim, what's the relevance of this so-called immigration to land ownership? What's your point?

Are you arguing that might is right - that whoever has the numbers and the power can just assert that they now own the land? If so, spin your argument forward to a time when numbers and power might be against Anglo-Australians. That would be OK? There are no moral questions to be answered? Or negotiations to be entered into?

Are you saying (assuming, for the sake of argument, you're right about historial migration) that 25-40,000 years is not long enough to establish ownership of the land? If so, what is the right length of time? Is there a right length of time?

Or do you simply assert that Australia belongs to anyone who comes here with the military capacity to take it?
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 1:35:04 PM
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
Perhaps the author might like to consult the meaning of ethnocentrism here at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

Notions of "primitive" and a hierarchy of cultures can only be sustained if we first privilege our own culture and judge every other culture by its standards.

For those of you advocating such consider if you were forced, without the advantages of western technolgy, to survive in central Australia. Very soon notions of "primitive" and "unsophisticated" would be judged in more relative terms when compared with the skills, knowledge and survivability of a person who grew up within a culture where the knowledge to do so was acquired as part of the maturation process.

You see where you stand on an issue is very much determined by where you sit.
Posted by shal, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 1:35:19 PM
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
King Canute, start with this. I got it in five minutes from wikipedia. If you need more follow the links to the actual studies.

Main article: History of Indigenous Australians
See also: Prehistory of Australia
See also: Aboriginal History of Western Australia

Then ask yourself why it all must be untrue for you.
Enjoy.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 1:43:50 PM
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
omygodnoitsitsitsyou, said :

"We ARE an inherently racist society, although we furiously claim otherwise."

Really? Yes there are, of course, racists in this country. Are we a racist society though? Do we, like Malaysia, have a quota system in place so that indigenous Malays, the majority of the population, are given a leg up over Chinese Malays? I always had to laugh when Mahatir accused us of being racist, the racism in his country is institutionalised and legislated for - do some research!

Do we stage a military coup like Fiji, every time indigenous Fijians don't like the fact that an Indian is running the show?

Australia has a plethora of anti-discrimination boards, human rights & equal opportunity commissions etc, to ensure that racial discrimination is not allowed to fester. While attitudes take time to adjust, legislation does not, it just takes an act of parliament - don't hold your breath for Malaysia and don't give me this bull___t handwringing that we are a champion nation in the racism stakes, we are not even a contender.

omygodnoitsitsitsyou, said :

"it may or may not involve a degree of financial restitution to create sustainable infrastructure and institutions to deliver the benefits"

Really? So what else has government at all levels been doing for the last, oh, 40 years or so other than attempting to assuage invader-guilt by throwing money at the issue? Having just spent a couple of months in an Aborignal medical service in the NT, I can tell you there are resources around, the problem goes far deeper than that, primarily the fact that when you get out of bed and have NOTHING to do, other than drink, and resources are made available for you to do so without working, and without those payments being tied to food/clothing/housing, then the alcohol-sodden mire that engulfs the NT is hardly a surprise.

The fed govt. is onto something up there (albeit with questionable electoral motives) and I only hope that the reactionary Howard-haters can get of their own way long enough to realise that drastic problems require drastic intervention
Posted by stickman, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 1:55:15 PM
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
King Canute,

I am out of Australia at present. If memory serves the claims were made by a genetist, West/Wells?. Think it is the guy mapping the human migration patterns in consort with the National Geographic Society. [Incidently, one can pay for a swab and participate in the study.]

The Oz first wave c. 40,000 BP is pretty much established. Mongo man and via Richard Leaky [paleo-anthhropolosit]. When humans have moved allowed the world, their is a major decline in the number of animal species. Leaky measured these extinctions and determined the same date. Even if one allows 50% margin, that is 60,000 BP.

Surely you are not suggesting that the indigineous Australian evolved indepedently? I think you would find it hard to support with any science. Carbon dating is unrealiable at 150,000 BP. Other methods, would be used to to date the rock strata. Rock strata move.

I have ready access to university journal databases. May I have citation for the 150,000 BP paper?

After 1788, there were waves of immigration into Austalia too. The convicts, the settlers/squatters, the gold rush [included Chinese], Germans in the early 1900s, Greeks & Italians in 1950s and 1960s, many Asians became Australians after the Vietnam.

Waves of migration even on small time intervals are typical. How would the belief that Australia received waves of immigration have anything whatsoever with an argument positing the racial superiority?

I must query the first black immigrants on this. There is no basis for them to feel "superior" than those, who came latter, any more than people colonised by Rome should feel superior to its legions [who settled].

I don't [yet] accept your 150,000 BP date: But, if it were correct, humans, we are all in palaelolithic era. On what basis, how could these people be said to be superior to the rest of humanity? Genetics suggests that humans are highly undifferentiated, all would have a familial societial structure with a clan leader and the religious system animal and spirit based, none temple based.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 2:11:11 PM
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
Actually King Canute, while there has been recent speculation and some evidence that humans have been here longer than previously thought, the jury is still well and truly out. Part of the problem for your theory is that radiocarbon dating is inherently limited to material that is 58,000 to 62,000 years old, so figures like 150,000 years BP have to be estimated by other, less tested, means. As far as I'm aware, the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis is still supported by most palaeoanthropologists and archaeologists.

Anyway, as FrankGol says, that really isn't the point. Even if Brian Holden's fanciful pastiche of folk theories about Aboriginal people is 'true' at some general level - e.g. successive immigration periods tens of thousands of years ago - this in no way justifies his gratuitous inference that Indigenous people ought to blame the impersonal tides of history, rather than hold their colonisers accountable.

Every non-Indigenous person in Australia is a direct beneficiary of the removal of Indigenous people from their lands. Among my many Aboriginal friends, acquaintances and former colleagues, I can't think of any who would say they have benefited similarly.

That's why an apology is still in order, on behalf of those of us who still benefit enormously from Aboriginal dispossession, which is apparently continuing still. Kevin Rudd knows this and said as much last night on ABC TV. That is one reason the Opposition holds the high moral ground in Indigenous affairs, and of course one reason for Howard's 'shock and awe' circus.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 2:18:02 PM
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
RE: Runner's comment that:

"Anyone who believes the dumb unscientific theory of evolution could not help but to come up with the same answers as the scientist did back then. If evolution was true then nearly all of us are cannibals!"

Questions:

1. - Which theory of evolution is the "dumb, unscientific one"?

2. - Runner states: "If evolution were true, then nearly all of us are cannibals!" I cannot make this particular leap of logic. Is there a brief explanation to help me across the chasm?

3. What have runner's points, referred to in 1 & 2, to do with Mr Holden's amateur anthropological pontifications?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 4:53:34 PM
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
Here is a link to a “Quantum” program on ABC that I hope my shed some light on the matter. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/stories/s10572.htm

from the transcript -
“Theoretically, carbon dating should give ages back to 70,000 years or so. But charcoal sometimes absorbs more recent carbon from the soil making it seem much younger than it really is. Alan Thorne considers the implications. ôIt doesn't mean that there's a sudden rush of people into Australia at that time. ItÆs just simply the physics of radio carbon. What it means is that most of these sites dated to thirty five to forty thousand are probably much older than that.”
“And ancient stone tools were unearthed from sands dated at more than 116,000 years old. The site was called Jinmium. Fuelled by intense media scrutiny it has reignited the debate about the first Australians. “

Good try aqvarivs, but no banana.

Firstly, as the above link shows, the Wiki stuff is based on outdated theories and data.
It does contain some theories allright, but again not a grain of evidence or a link to a grain of evidence.,
But at least it is not as bold in its assertions as the above article. Peppered throughout the Wiki information are words like the following which indicate the limited credibility of the information.
“It is believed that “
“It is also possible that”
“There is no clear or accepted origin of the indigenous people of Australia.”
“It is thought”
“The exact timing of the arrival of the ancestors of the Indigenous Australians has been a matter of dispute among archaeologists.”
“it is estimated that”
“are likely to have been”
and so on on and so forth.
By the Wiki author's acedemic standards, even the Holden article could be considered an authoratative primary source.

Oliver,
let us know when you track down West or Wells.
Also, Mungo man was not the first person in Australia. There is no evidence that he did not have ancestors in Australia for thousands of years.
Posted by King Canute, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 8:20:02 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
Sorry King Canute, but those dates for Jinmium were well and truly debunked years ago.

This is a more recent article which should bring you up to speed:

J. F. O'Connell and J. Allen. 2004. "Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): a review of recent research". Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 31, Issue 6, June 2004, Pages 835-853.

Abstract:

The date for the initial colonization of Sahul is a key benchmark in human history and the topic of a long-running debate. Most analysts favor either a 40,000 BP or 60,000 BP arrival time, though some have proposed a much earlier date. Here we review data from more than 30 archaeological sites with basal ages >20,000 years reported since 1993, giving special attention to five sites with purported ages >45,000 years. We conclude that while the continent was probably occupied by 42–45,000 BP, earlier arrival dates are not well-supported. This observation undercuts claims for modern human migrations out of Africa and beyond the Levant before 50,000 BP. It also has critical but not yet conclusive implications for arguments about a human role in the extinction of Sahul megafauna.

But as I suggested above, you don't need to make spurious claims in order to refute Holden's ignorant folk wisdom. Current reputable scientific data does that quite nicely :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 9:00:18 PM
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
Have a look at this abstract http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/21/8726 Mitochondrial DNA and Y DNA analysis indicates that "prehistoric Australia and New Guinea were occupied initially by one and the same Palaeolithic colonization event circa 50,000 years ago, in agreement with current archaeological evidence. The deep mtDNA and Y chromosomal branching patterns between Australia and most other populations around the Indian Ocean point to a considerable isolation after the initial arrival. We detect only minor secondary gene flow into Australia, and this could have taken place before the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea was submerged 8,000 years ago."

In oher words, the evidence points to a single migration, with a minor admixture of later arrivals, most likely more than 8,000 years ago.

I note that Keith Windschuttle is a proponent of the multiple origin hypothesis http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm Why would Windschuttle be interested? Because "pan-Aboriginalism, the notion that all Australian indigenous people had a common political interest, was always dependent on the idea that they were one people." Most of his "evidence" is dubious, relying on anthropometry and craniometry. Looks like Windschuttle will have to crawl back under his rock on this one.
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 9:15:44 PM
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
My point, and what everyone seems to agree on, is that the "aboriginals" came from some other place first. It was never my intention to suggest that the various tribes of Australian "natives" had no right to property of other rights enjoyed by every other Australian whether they be of Slav, Nordic, Mid East Asian, Asian or of any other origin. Or just plain white and black, which in my thinking is more to the point in the persistent to and fro between the aborigines and Government.
It isn't so much the "invasion" since the Aborigines invaded themselves but rather it was done by white men. Had it been blacks come 1780s I suggest the native would have been assumed and nary a word known today of the original tribes but mythology. The disparity between black and white shows itself in many of histories human clashes and conflicts.
A case in point is Africans trading in Africans. Africans were knee deep in selling their captured tribal enemies into slavery thousands of years before the Portuguese started to middleman for the Spanish in South America and then the United States. It's still going on today. Hardly hear a peep about it because whites aren't involved. Talk about whites using black slaves and OH MY GOD. Those racist bastards. The whites are trying to keep the black man down.
Very few people on both sides of the colour divide have the ability to overcome that barrier. I don't know who the guilt trippers are in political Australia between the two societies. What I do know is that I don't owe the aboriginals any apology or sympathy for their existence today, nor did my father or grandfathers. It's not my government. My forefather was dragged here in chains from Canada to pay a debt to the King. He wasn't considered part of society.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 3:46:50 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
King Canute,

--ALL’S WELLS THAT ENDS WELLS--

Your sarcasm is noted. Wells … Dr Spencer Wells:

“60,000 years ago the world was in the grip of an ice age. So a lot of land mass was uncovered which is now buried in the sea and that is how I believe our ancestors travelled. This was the first migration wave. I believe that the ancestors of Australian aborigines come from here. The second wave took place 45,000 years ago.” – Wells

Wells is working in close consort with the National Geographic Society and the [US] National Science Foundation.

Johnj refers to another crossing 8,000 BP.

--WACKY WIKI--
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. The data contained there are not peer reviewed. Anyb looney can post. Contrarily, typically, it takes a year or two of revisions to make into print in a good journal. Moreover, there are significant intellectual property rights issues, when Wiki authors cut and paste or paraphase unauthorised from other parties. No one should regard it Wacky reliable or many of its authors even ethical.

Did Wiki triangulate disciplines to consider immediately [a few thousands years in millions of years] after human arrival, there was an immense mega-funa extinction [Leakey].

Further, Polar ice cores can be used to confirm the climatic conditions under which Wells and Leakey’s scenarios took place.

--JIMMI’S BEEN JUMBLED--
“The team considers this is how the age of the Jinmium deposit originally came to be overestimated. The latest technique of single-grain analysis by OSL is considered far more accurate and reliable. Standard OSL methods gave a maximum date of 22,000 years for the bottom layer of the Jinmium deposit, and single grain analysis showed that the true age was younger still, no more than 10,000 years for the whole deposit.” – CSIRO

Your source has jumped the gun and your Wacky wiki author should have noted this situation. The studies reported by CJMorgan seem much more reliable.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 12:54:19 PM
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
"(There has been) a plethora of formal apologies from Parliaments around Australia, churches, community groups, ethnic organisations, schools, local governments, unions, peak NGOs, and the thousands of individual Australians who have signed petitions, written letters and publicly declared their sorrow." Mick Dodson in The Age (quoted on the HEROC site).

So how much apology is necessary, or is it all about $$ - the hope by some activists that an apology by the PM will result in large scale compensation? How much money out of our taxes has already been spent on legal challenges to attain this result?

Given the rounds of apologies that have already taken place, shouldn't activists come clean and admit that "Show me the money" is the real motivation?
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:46:17 PM
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
Cornflower,

I suspect you're right. A lot of the motivation is to get compo of some kind.

The interesting thing is that ever since Howard's commitment to intervening in Aboriginal communities, the bleatings of the Left are drying up because Howard has supplanted the "Sorry" campaign with his own version of symbolic atonement. How ironic.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 3:00:31 PM
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
It should be plain that the author is not a racist. He is just one more citizen who recognises that, after the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars since 1967 and getting in return what appears to be the greatest social failure in the western world, is now saying that enough is enough.

The author claimed that the white colonists and bureaucrats dealing with the blacks should not be blamed for the sad outcome on the grounds that we nearly all have limited visions. He may have been aware that in the crisis we now have, black activists continuing to point fingers at the white establishment would be most unproductive.

Who are these people who posted all those hostile comments? They are the very small minority of white zealots who occupy the high moral ground. If the white occupation is not fundamentally guilty, then there is no high moral ground for this noble minority of whites to occupy.

There are inevitable holes in every argument arriving at a very broad conclusion and limited to 1500 words to do it in. All authors know this. The majority of visitors to OLO get what they can out of an article and leave without comment. It is this silent majority that authors aim at
Posted by healthwatcher, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 6:48:56 PM
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
I am sure that the science in the Quantum program is outdated and whatever the theory of the day is, it won't be long before it also is debunked.

I am not arguing for any hypothesis of the history of Australia, I am arguing that all the hypotheses are fabrications, intelligent guesses at best. These fabrications are used to justify attitudes towards Aboriginal people or to interpret Aboriginal current events, as the Holden article does. It must be understood that this has nothing to do with science or history but is just a deliberate gathering up of malicious opinion in an attempt to build an ideological platform that conforms to psychological prejudices.

Interestingly enough nobody seems to think that the Aboriginal folk stories that go back beyond several ice ages have any relevence to this discussion.

The out of Africa theory is crumbling as dating technology finds older and older humans around the world, including the little person in Indonesia dug up recently. The truth is that the out of Africa theory has no more to substantiate it than Holden's assertions. What if humans appeared during the Gondwanalaland era, what would that do to the out of Africa theory?

The real tricky question is how did humans come to be? Again an unknowable wonder. Of the Aboriginal creation stories that I have heard there seems to be two sorts, one that people grew out of the earth, the other that humans arrived from out of space. Given that everything on the planet came from out of space at some stage, these stories have some merit in scientific terms.

I don't agree that Aborigines migrated from the north, the genetic difference between Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as well as New Guineans and Pacific Islanders suggests that the people here are not related to them. This is why the Sahul land bridge is fascinating in geographical terms but of little help to explain the genetic difference of the so called "Australoids" (which are also in Sri Lanka (not India) which brings up all sorts of Gondwanaland questions.
Posted by King Canute, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 7:09:46 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
King Canute,

Genetic studies should provide stable answers in the next 5-10 years. Not only for/about indigineous Australians, but for/about all humankind. The National Geographic Study you lampoon is important science.

Malevolent psychological prejucies are a bad thing, stop. Both sides [for want of a better word] too often habour these thoughts. Neither remnants of British overlordship, nor the exclusiveness of Aboriginal kinship systems help. Both must face globalisation and cannot be insular.

Folk stories: Cultural anthropologists "would" place significant weight on folk stories: But like the Roman Mystery Cults can be categorised. I suspect most aboriginal peoples were/are more in touch with creation accounts and other ideologies than are those in the Western thread of history.

As animists, Australian aboriginals are perhaps more aligned to the Japanese or first North American clans. The art of latter is remarkably similar to that of earlier Australians. Also, I can't see that animists can "own" Land, as this means they own the spirits. Guardianship over? In the Western thread of history, 6,000 BP, in Sumer, Land, owned by God, was administered by the then priesthood. God owned the Land. This early Western history is one stage removed from animism... "Estate" in land was thousands of years away. The Crown or State has powers over so-called absolute ownership
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 8:16:09 PM
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
Oliver says "Johnj refers to another crossing 8,000 BP". I'm sorry Oliver, but that is not what I said at all. I said "the evidence points to a single migration, with a minor admixture of later arrivals, most likely more than 8,000 years ago." The paper I quoted suggested an original migration ca. 50,000 years ago.

I am proud of my Irish heritage, but 9,000 years ago Ireland was covered covered in ice and uninhabitable. Try telling the Irish that they're migrants because they've "only" been there for 8,000 years.
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 11:31:10 PM
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 Oliver and other OLO posters, .... that find our Indigenous History and attachment with Land too hard to comprehend ,

If you have a chance to absorb and respectfully reflect on Ted Strehlow's wonderfull "Aranda Traditions", you will find in his real world Aboriginal people in there that literally are the Land ,in that they are they are the "direct" human descendants of the Creators -that were and are sometimes Animal ,sometimes Human forms of certain geographic features or waterholes, soaks and types of vegetation etc that make up Australia as we know it and of which they can speak for.

For the Aboriginal World ,and ours today , if we want to see it in a different and more enlightened light and in it's most complex , there was and is today in many areas Elders that have an oral Tradition that explains the World of Australia.

We should not let Howard and his manipulating Land hungry henchmen take from Aboriginal People what is theirs, be it their Spoken Tradition or the Dust of their Ancestors .
Posted by kartiya jim, Thursday, 12 July 2007 12:39:58 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
Sorry Kartiya Jim

I have about as much respect for Australian aboriginal myths and superstitions as I do for those of any of the other religions - i.e. zero.

I'll take the scientific method any day, along with rigorous debate, to attempt to discover the nature of the world around us. Aboriginal Australians might have some nice creation stories but please don't ask me to take them seriously, in the scientific sense.

And by the way, the dust of my ancestors lies beneath Australian soil too. I am sorry for the way Aboriginal Australians have been treated in the past but I was born here too.

Howard-hating is a badge of honour amongst many blackfellas that I know. I wonder if Kevin Rudd had come up with these proposals, whether the chorus of outrage would be the same? In fact, he has pretty much "me-tooed" everything Howard has said (in order that this not be used as an electoral tool); where is the chorus of outrage directed at Rudd?

I wonder what happens when Howard is voted out (possibly very soon) - who are the sociologists/anthropologists going to nominate as their next target to blame for the ills of indigenous Australia?

If a Rudd prime ministership issues an apology forthwith, what then? More of the same? Consultation? Self-determination? A bloated bureaucracy that looks after its mates and is manifestly unaccountable because of white guilt?

Something needs to be done out there in the red centre people - let's debate what exactly that is, but please, not more of the same.
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 12 July 2007 7:38:01 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
King Canute,

Genetic studies should provide stable answers in the next 5-10 years. Not only for/about indigineous Australians, but for/about all humankind. The National Geographic Study you lampoon is important science.

Malevolent psychological prejucies are a bad thing, stop. Both sides [for want of a better word] too often habour these thoughts. Neither remnants of British overlordship, nor the exclusiveness of Aboriginal kinship systems help. Both must face globalisation and cannot be insular.

Folk stories: Cultural anthropologists "would" place significant weight on folk stories: But like the Roman Mystery Cults can be categorised. I suspect most aboriginal peoples were/are more in touch with creation accounts and other ideologies than are those in the Western thread of history.

As animists, Australian aboriginals are perhaps more aligned to the Japanese or first North American clans. The art of latter is remarkably similar to that of earlier Australians. Also, I can't see that animists can "own" Land, as this means they own the spirits. Guardianship over? In the Western thread of history, 6,000 BP, in Sumer, Land, owned by God, was administered by the then priesthood. God owned the Land. This early Western history is one stage removed from animism... "Estate" in land was thousands of years away. The Crown or State has powers over so-called absolute ownership.

Kartija jim,

Thank you for your post. I have not had the opportunity of reading Strehlow’s work. From what I can glean from your post, there are similarities between Aboriginal and Japanese animists. The Emperor of the Chrysanthemum Throne must have through his familial associations and origins in a particular geophysical area.
Many religions believe they have a “special” relationship with their god(s), especially tribal communities: e.g., the Hebrews. The traditional Chinese are ancestor worshippers; there is a spirit world, however, the distinction between the presence of a family member between life and death is not strong. Pragmatically, land was often owned by independent farmers. The Chinese feudal system failed c. 300 BCE.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 12 July 2007 1:33:36 PM
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
JohnJ,

My fingers and mind were out of synch. I meant to type "before" 8,000 BP. I looked at the abstract but could find a free full copy by using a university database. [The Proceedings go back to 1915!]. My read of the abstract is that the posit is, there was an extra migration in history much closer to the present than 50,000 years ago and minimal technology transfer took place. Think Wells uses non-combinate Y chromosome DNA. I don't have the book with me. My understanding is there were waves. How big? I don't know.

Afraid your ancestors were Irish immigrants, as were mine, on my matrimonial side. Albeit, on the patrimonial line, Norseman-French Scotish.

I feel no reason to proud [or otherwise] of my ancestors. They happened and I am. Why should I? We are separated by time, social systems, political systems and economic systems, at the very least. Some of my Scotish ancestors were historically significant, but that is only a curiousity to me.

c. 40,000-60,000 seems cross-verified as the first wave. Mega-funa extinction means more than the demise giant wombats. It is an indicator to human arrival. DNA suggests later migrations.

We are all descendents of emigrants from Africa.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 12 July 2007 9:35:06 PM
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
Oliver says: "We are all descendents of emigrants from Africa."

Suppose we agree - so what? What does that say about how we should have acted in Australia between the beginnings and 1788, and between 1788 and now, and how we should act in Australia beyond 2007?

The old logical fallacy seems to be getting another airing.

But IS does not equal OUGHT.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 12 July 2007 11:32:22 PM
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
Those who put an onus on "we" are exclusionary and lump all whites en mass for "blame" for the recent history of "Them". We are not all of the "We" even if we are white and the "Them" hold responsibility for their current "They". Running back to 1780 to lay the foundation for blame is nonsensical. The "white" invasion aside. In 2007 the U.N and a couple a hundred NGO do gooder's would be swarming Australia to bring the Aboriginal into the 21st century. Not to mention foreign fisher trawlers, Muslim and Christian reformers, the tourista, geological hunters and a dozen more kinds of "invasions". There is no going back and there is no staying the same. The romantic idealisation of primitive and innocent Australia is tribal myth and grist for guilt trippers who have to blame someone or something rather than accept that it is a matter of an accumulation of many things over the passing of Australian history beginning with the Aboriginals themselves.
Whites or any government are not to blame for Aboriginal alcoholism and child abuse anymore than all whites or the government is responsible for white alcoholism and child abuse. "If (we) never came all would be well." Ha. Piffle and more of the quilt trippers self-loathing being passed onto their own kind.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 13 July 2007 12:28:49 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
aqvarivs,

wriggling out of responsibility is a trait of those that don't really care .

THe attitude of so many is ," If they can't help themselves , send in the troopers" .

We now hear on the ABC [AM] today that the child care and community budget for Mutujulu has been underspent by some $300 thousand dollrs and that the Community is now penniless .

Great work John and Mal after 10 years in Government.

Back to the Article.....

Unfortunately probably most OLO posters would not realise that the word and phrase "SORRY" and "MY SYMPATHY" have very similar meanings for Aboriginal Society.

GRIEF and SYMPATHY expressed collectively and individually in Aboriginal Communities can be described as "SORRY BUSINESS" when people come together for funerals or to give bereaved families comfort and support.

Howard's inability to countenance his Government saying SORRY ,with it's much deeper meaning, is a sad reflection on his indifference , our education system and so many other basically apathetic and Culturally illiterate white Australians.
Posted by kartiya jim, Friday, 13 July 2007 9:56:19 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
kartiya jim, there is greed and dishonesty in every level of government.

The Chief issue with past and present Government is the idea of needing to be responsible for those 'hapless natives who are too happy to sit on a hot rock all day chewing beetles or going walkabout for weeks on end.' Treating the Aborigines as such and completely managing their lives has lead to such a dependency mindset with in the Aboriginal community. Putting Indigenous people on the dole and providing housing and education and health care, etc, etc, isn't good for their collective consciousness of self no matter how much it may have been salve for the white invasion quilt trippers, and those angry Aborigines who wanted to make the white man pay. All peoples need to acquire the things they need for living and growing through their own effort. Such work feeds the mind, the heart, the soul, and the body. And allows for that man or woman to stand proud as a contributor to their society. This work, this pride of self, has been denied the Aboriginal by successive government management. One can not manage a people. Period.
It's time the Aborigines took their lives back and began to function as independent, self-actualising human beings capable of standing on their own two feet and feeding themselves. They have to own up to their own actions and behaviors and start their own healing process. And they really need honest caring leadership from with in their own communities.
The government may give the Aboriginals the tools and budgets and availability to services as they do any other community but, then must step back and adopt a hands off approach letting the aborigines learn to live and be a responsible contributor to the greater Australian community with out exception.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 13 July 2007 11:45:21 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
Frank Col,

"What does that say about how we should have acted in Australia between the beginnings and 1788, and between 1788 and now..." -FC

Who are "we"? My family, both sides, in Australia goes back well into the nineteenth century. [nothing compared to 50K years, I know]
I am sure that no member of my familial line was involved in any agressive actions against indigineous people. Does "we" include Australians of Greek, Italian or Vietamese heritage?

In eighteenth century, there were some terrible atrocities committed by British guards against white prisoners. The British in recent centuries denied education to the [Catholic?]Irish. Bad things happened, but over the generations people move on.

I see no reason why a twenty year old Japanese person should apologise to me over Japan bombing Darwin. Historical accounts need to frank and honest, though.

Anyone born in the 1950s-1970s, black or white, needs to make big adjustments in meeting the twenty-first century. We cannot live the past. It's gone. The past is the past
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 13 July 2007 3:25:21 PM
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
I thought this was an uncontentious rehash of Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel", applied to Aboriginals. Only the title looked out of place. Typically in our society you apologise if the hostess runs into you and spills wine down her front even though it isn't your fault. So, apologising for wiping out most of a race doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, regardless of how it happened. Perhaps Brian was trying to generate a interested in what is mostly a piece about common sense.

If so, by god it worked! Sheesh! Why is saying something simple, like "the Aboriginals were doomed to their current fate regardless of who colonised the country" so not PC? The statement is almost self evident! When Australia was colonised the Aboriginals were going to be displaced - regardless of who did it. And they were going to be killed in the process - not in the least because they didn't like being displaced.

And its not like Australia wasn't going to be colonised by somebody - a woomera just doesn't cut it against guns, germs and steel. It happened to be us. Being the selfish person I am, I am glad it was.

And finally, years ago when I was a teenager, I expressed the same frustrations to my Dad as are expressed in the comments above. We whites are selfish! It we just lent a kind helping to the Aboriginals the problem would go away. And Dad, normally a such an understanding man, said: "Do you think my generation is stupid? Do you think my fathers generation were a bunch of brutes? What do you think we have been doing?" Or something like that. It was a long while ago.

Brian Holden is right. Apparently we can't stand to see the Aboriginals live by their own rules and all that implies with infant mortality rates and what not. And we can't abide fixing that by mothering them - with the pouring millions of dollars a year into a black hole that requires. So what other solutions are there, other than integration?
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 13 July 2007 4:19:49 PM
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
Oliver: Your advice, “We cannot live the past. It's gone. The past is the past”, is simplistic, and demonstrably silly. In your own postings you use the past to justify present-day circumstances which suggests you are putting a moral judgment (of sorts) on what happened in history.

You seem to have a developed interest in history, hence your offerings on “the three waves of immigrants into Australia, between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago”. And after all, in your view of history, “We are all descendents of emigrants from Africa."

You use the history of invasions to reflect on the benefits: “With invasions come the opportunity for cross-accrulturation and technology transfer. So, its not all bad.” But you also use history of invasions to predict the future: “If the Anglo-Celts left tomorrow and the West took a hands off Australia approach, the remaining people would speaking Indonesian in no time.” But are you as sanguine about that prospect – ‘the steamroller of history’ - as you are about the earlier invasion?

If you see history as inevitable and its consequences irreversible, we would obviously have to accept an Indonesian or Chinese or American invasion in the future, and just get on with it! After all, “it’s not all bad.”

Why do we have courts and tribunals (domestic and international)? Their work is always based on historical events. They assess evidence about past claimed wrongs and offer redress as appropriate. They don’t just say to victims of crime, “Stiff, that happened in the past is the past; now get on with it.” There is a morality of right and wrong in the laws they use to make judgments.

Just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean we can’t exercise our sense of right and wrong to assess whether it was right and whether those who were wronged should have some redress. History teaches us that that philosophy is a crude 'might-is-right' law of the jungle.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 13 July 2007 4:25:38 PM
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
FrankCol,

Thank you for your interesting comment.

I was not lobbying for igoring past wrongs, against compensation or intenational law: Rather that people should live in the present.

Maybe, Arnold Toynbee, puts it better than can I, in context with a defeated population:

A typical background:

"In the Hellenic World ... in the second century BC thousands of Syrians and other highly cultivated Orientals were deprived of their freedom, uprooted from their homes, separated from their families and shipped to Sicily and Italy"... it was "impossible for them to make their homelands."

The above is one of hundreds of historical examples, wherein, because there is no way to escape the present, "there is an archaistic retreat in the past". What also can occur is the self-trascendence of futurism [There will be a messiah ... Jews, Christians]. Thus, defense mechanism prevent those involved in dealing with the "present":

The aboriginal concept we once lived in a Utopian world is archaistic and Land Rights, when culturally significant beyond some legal compensation]is futurism.

The European invasion destroyed the aboriginal domain over Australia just a surely as the Rome levelled the Second Temple [70 CE]. A done deal.

Moreover, the more an aboriginal clan feels under threat the more communalism and fanilialism are strengthened. The more communalism and familialism are strengthened, the more alien are the minority aboriginal clans become alien to a twenty-first century civilization. The process feeds on itself.

Alernatively, clan traditions "should" [in my opinon] remain respected, but need to subordinated those of the national state [most of the rest of society achieves this goals, Scots, Vietnamese, Jews], because we live in the era of nation states.

The push-pull situation should be away from communalism and the past, towards the orientation of the dominant[liberal] nation state. Let go of the buring building and fall into the net.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 14 July 2007 2:06:02 PM
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
"It's time the Aborigines took their lives back and began to function as independent, self-actualising human beings..." - Aqvarivs

Catch is, independence and self-actuialisation are not cultural antecedents associated in collectivist societies. Economic outcomes of a pre-agrarian [and agrarian] society more tethered to malthusian limits than are post-industrial and market-based societies. Retaining pre-agrarian system, with the expectations of the wealth generation of a post-industrial society, is unrealistic, unless said post-industrial society supports welfare or compensation [guilt of their (usually Western)ancestors].

My posts are to suggest a "Dr Phil Moment" to aboriginals: Tell it as it. Aboriginals are equal humans, equal Australians and deserve compensation [but not in perpetuity]: Yes, must face the situation and adapt. Aboriginal ancestors may have been in Oz first, but their descendants too often stay immigrants to twenty-first century economic and social systems. Familialism and kinship ties buttress this steadfastness.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 14 July 2007 6:40:24 PM
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
Oliver said:

"Economic outcomes of a pre-agrarian [and agrarian] society more tethered to malthusian limits than are post-industrial and market-based societies."

Oliver, I like the gist of your last 2 posts and I think I know what you are getting at but.. what does the above mean? Who or what was Malthus?
Posted by stickman, Saturday, 14 July 2007 7:00:50 PM
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
"It's time the Aborigines took their lives back and began to function as independent, self-actualising human beings..." - Aqvarivs
Yes Oliver, because no matter a Aboriginal society of hunter/gather's pre "white invasion", I would suggest they were a independent, self-actualising people by necessity of basic human survival and had pride of self regardless of a base existence in comparison to todays managed existence by government policy on Aboriginal affairs.
Every human being needs the opportunity to stand before his or her society and proclaim "I am" by my own efforts, "We are" because of our effort. Familiar inclusion and shared productive contributions that lead to familiar, local, community, state, national pride and sense of self worth. Value.
Such lack of self-worth, pride, dignity, being of a value to society isn't an Aboriginal issue alone. It can be seen in long term reliance on social welfare, extended prision sentences or any other exception were human beings are managed and "institutionalised" with in society.

Be careful of what you easily dismiss in the name of historical context or Familialism and kinship. The issue is not with the Aboriginal "clan" structure as a deterrent to a independent and self-actualising and productive society but, rather that today that society is dependent on "another" society for it's survival and sense of social expectation and regard.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 15 July 2007 12:14:14 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
Stickman,

Thomas Malthus [1766-1834] tried to understand the relationship between population and food supply. By way of extension technologically advanced societies are better placed to create a surplus over food needs. Moreover, with further extension, the surplus can be used to free labour for research and development, while sustaining the entire population.

Aquarivs,

Familialism and kinship are cultural dimensions defined by anthropologists to show communal groups with strong in-group/out-group affinities: They are homogeneous and exclusive, tribal.

In contrast, the West is heterogeneous, because of the need to sustain a cosmopolitan function. While the clan may have the same values of an individual in a civilization, it is the clan’s group value not the “self” which is highlighted. Here, I posit that the clan structure ‘is’ “deterrent to an independent and self-actualising and productive” behaviour in contemporary Australian society.

The issue is that an in-group clan structure does not mesh with a cross-group Western society. The in-group/out-group behaviours exhibited are not in context with the prevailing societal ecology. Similarly, the Jews didn’t function well in Greek and Roman colonies, while they remained steadfast in the belief it was their land [given by God] and that they possessed a special exclusivity apart the rest of society.

Agree on the matter of dependency, but add dependency is a consequence of the aforementioned. The people involved need to break with the clan model reassign heritage as a respected retrospective.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 15 July 2007 5:14:40 PM
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
Oliver, do you include Australia in your definition of 'the west'? And if so how do you exclude the Aboriginal from that influence. Not only is the historical clan structure of the Aboriginal society not being upheld it doesn't exist- with the Elders being refused a voice by the 'administrators' of Aboriginal affairs, complete families broken up and others decimated by drugs, alcohol, lack of education, socialisation, employment and a drought of aboriginal leadership over their own affairs. The whole structure of the idea of having and practicing an Aboriginal policy is rank insult. Consider a policy enacted to manage oliver? Not a happy thought I think no matter how willing you are to have strangers dictate the manner and form of your existence.
I should think Aboriginals would be part and parcel of that western cosmopolitan Australian society, in as much as Scottish, Greek, Indian, Vietnamese or gay and lesbian communities can be considered all of one society under todays (multi)culturally influenced localities which are clans by a different name.
Australia has had 200 odd years of direct influence in matters of Aboriginal life and society and aside from the myth and tourista speak very little of a historical cultural Aborigine structure has not been displaced by a very aggressive 'western' permutation.
I don't believe there is blame or in political apologies or political sympathy. A clash of cultures is a clash of cultures. What I do think is Australia needs to make peace with the Aborigines by stepping away from political and governmental policies that manage the Aborigines affairs.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 15 July 2007 7:07:59 PM
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
Aquarivs,

Yes, I would include Australia in my definition of “the West”, wherein by heterogeneous I should add there is no/little self-departmentalisation... Yes again, there are differences, but, today, the locus needs to be on the main society, not the enclave. The Scots “remember” their clans and the Greeks their folklore, but typically they are not so engaged in their [past] society of origin, as to miss the main game. Multiculturalism works, where the various cultural representations are not kin-based, because kin altruism holds too distant non-kin altruism, by definition, and diminishes the potential for assimilation. By assimilation, I mean into the direction of [Western] society direct not emulation of today.

Clans are fundamentally exclusive [Alliances between clans are often utilitarian].

[The gays are a sub-culture within a society, but I understand your point. The gays are not refusing to engage Western civilization.]

People remember WWI, including people, who made recording of the lyrics of the old war songs, before the last diggers died. Valuable, but one does not act as if it “is” 1915. The aboriginals need to demote tribalism to treasured heritage, and participate in out-group society.

Elders have power in a clan community and community members will listen: But age-related patriarchs will wish to maintain its community’s cultural status quo, and, therefore, have a stake in perpetuating ecologically non-compliant systems. Instead, Elders need to accept reality, and promote the model of modernity, whilst preserving past legacies.

“I should think Aboriginals would be part and parcel of that western cosmopolitan Australian society…” So, do I, but it requires dramatic change on their behalf, not only help.

Making peace is two sided. Perhaps special financial compensation is required for a few generations to permit transition [then stop]. But ultimately one needs stop taking tooth-ache cure and go to the dentist. Today, Clans cannot co-exist with modernity, at least, not as some bastardised form of what was. The aboriginal infant needs to feel it lives in the West’s today, not an aboriginal today.

Offpost for a few days. Busy.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 15 July 2007 9:06:10 PM
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
Oliver, you say:
"Elders have power in a clan community and community members will listen: But age-related patriarchs will wish to maintain its community’s cultural status quo, and, therefore, have a stake in perpetuating ecologically non-compliant systems. Instead, Elders need to accept reality, and promote the model of modernity, whilst preserving past legacies."

"Ecologically non-compliant systems"? Interesting. What is it you mean? How is such compliance or non-compliance determined?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 15 July 2007 9:34:04 PM
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
Oliver ,
I know plenty of Aboriginal people that happily live in two worlds and perform well in both .

They understand and speak two "languages".

On your the visit to the dentist ,I believe it's not the blacks ,it's us whites that need the visit .....to remove that rotten racist tooth that has been poisoning our attitudes to Indigenous people for over 100 years .
Posted by kartiya jim, Sunday, 15 July 2007 10:44:50 PM
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
Oliver, we differ at the core issue. You say the Aborigine are an enclave trapped from entering the broader community of Australia by reason of history and cultural design, especially the interdependence in clan or tribal societies. I say that the Aborigine are not by design or natural mentality enclave or isolationistic but rather are through the use of state and national policy and an aggressive dominating cultural influence been kept from any social acceptance and integration, and especially with the use of reserves to maintain that separation and distinct society monitored and enforced by the Government of Australia. I really do think that if you want to make peace with a people and heal old wounds it's best to stop doing the same old behavior, especially if that behavior is full on management of their existence.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 16 July 2007 5:45:27 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
Aquarivs,

Contrarily, I agree with much that you say, but feel one can highlight one side of the balance sheet. Instead, I feel we need to change and be actively involved.

We might differ on clan societies whether clan-based societies tend to be exclusive or not: You the latter, me the former.

In the '50s, Margaret Mead described Irish farming “primitive”, because the Landed of the Emerald Isle, didn’t leave sections of land to fallow. Perhaps, not exactly PC, but she was making an anthropological remark not having a dig [ahem] at the farmers. To be more productive alternatives need/needed* to be shown to the farmers and explained by an external party and the farmers need/needed to adapt: The farmers’ environment would become more productive through adaptation. Albeit, the farmers would have the right to retain past practices for sociological reasons; but, the result would be to stay poorer than had they embraced the alternative.

* Don’t know current situation.

kartiya jim,

“I know plenty of Aboriginal people that happily live in two worlds and perform well in both” -kj

Not enough folk have made the adjustment, though. We need to do better. It is racism and clan exclusivity that need to be addressed.

An exercise if you will, please: Name three things “each” party must do to achieve rapprochement, then unification.

Sir Vivor,

A society needs to adopt cultural systems that fit the ecological environment. The Australian environment is ecologically hostile to exclusive clans. Likewise, were the typical corporate high flyer transported to the Simpson Dessert, the skill-set would not fit the new circumstance.

If white babies were born into a tribe in a tribal era, then it would wise for the white parents to teach the child ecologically appropriate survival skills. For much of the 60,000 years that Australia has been occupied by humans, whites in earlier civilizations have done exactly that, else other whites would not be here
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 16 July 2007 6:20:34 PM
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
Jolanda, what is the point of providing better schools for the Aboriginal kids when their dopey parents don't take the time to make sure that they attend the schools which are currently provided.

To other commentators, what is the point of providing good housing when soon after they move in, the houses are being torn apart.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 16 July 2007 7:27:37 PM
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
VK3AUU. I am not Aboriginal, I come from a good middle class area and I have a great husband and 4 wonderful children and I have had trouble getting my children to school. Some years it has been a nightmare. I can understand the difficulties presented to these fellow mothers. It is hard enough when life is good to get your children to school some days, imagine how hard it would be if things were bad.

Imagine if your child had to live in disadvantaged surroundings and attend a disadvantaged school. A school that is achieving outcomes so low that they are not counted with the others and pretty much render most of them illiterate. Imagine if your child felt they were often treated with disdain at school. Imagine if your child hated it.

School is not a place where all children feel respected, accepted and safe, as individuals, and many children do not respond well.

It isn’t easy for a parent to force a child to go to school day after day when the child doesn’t feel validated, protected, accepted and safe. I know it made my children sick and they took alot of time off school.

It is sad that some children would probably feel more accepted, protected, happier and safe in the streets than in our schools.
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 16 July 2007 8:56:22 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
Oliver ,
On your "rapprochement" for Black and White and Other Australians ,I think that WE SHALL AGREE TO :

1. A United Nations sponsored TREATY that gives real benefits for Aboriginal People,the settlement of LAND OWNERSHIP and with it an end to the unfairness of their present social condition.

2.The Compulsory comprehensive learning of Australian English and the nearest local FULL WORKING Aboriginal Language .

3.The Federal Government to make Australia Day and Invasion Day TWO public holidays.

4.And as sport is so important for most of us, I believe in the unifying effect of a unique Australian Aboriginal "HAKA" to be sung along with,or as an alternative to our present National Anthem at International Sporting Competitions;for a start in competitions with the All BLACKS and our other Pacific Neighbours.

IT would be a small but very significant step in the acceptance of our shared history and a song we could sing with pride,one day .

We have "unfinished Business" with our Aboriginal Brothers and Sisters that needs SERIOUS and URGENT ATTENTION now .
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 16 July 2007 9:04:51 PM
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
Oliver, farming Aboriginals is about right considering the national and state policy that manages a people to the extent the Indigenous are managed so terribly by the Multicultural and Indigenous affairs people across Australia. But should the Federal and State Governments be in the business of farming Aboriginal society? My main issue with multiculturalism is we have all these societies to caretaker instead of a single vibrant society exhibiting pride of accomplishment from family ties through pride of state and nation. Too much dysfunction and waste of resources in micro and macro managing ethnicity and culture. Issues of culture and ethnicity shouldn't be the governments business. Period.
Enjoy the cool weather
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 12:42:44 PM
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
re
"... a single vibrant society exhibiting pride of accomplishment from family ties through pride of state and nation."

Myself, I would prefer a society made of a mosaic of interlocking cultures and subgroups, where individuals & groups have their own identities, freedoms and responsibilities assured by an overarching legal system which recognises and protects rights to cultural and religious identity as well as individual rights and obligations, regardless of wealth and status.

My "single, vibrant society" would more resemble a native forest, as opposed to a monoculture plantation; a system which evolves toward greater equity, out of mutual confrontation and accomodation, rather than a place optimised for the profit and advantage of some higher echelon.

If that sounds utopian, then consider the dysutopia which might be justified in the minds of some supporters of a "single, vibrant society". Here is what one man saw last century:

"The Measures Taken"

The lazy are slaughtered
The world grows industrious

The ugly are slaughtered
The world grows beautiful

The foolish are slaughtered
The world grows wise

The sick are slaughtered
The world grows healthy

The sad are slaughtered
The world grows merry

The old are slaughtered
The world grows young

The enemies are slaughtered
the world grows friendly

The wicked are slaughtered
The world grows good"

Erich Fried (1921-1988)
translated from German by Michael Hamburger
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 4:09:08 PM
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
Sir Vivor, family ties covers your concerns for religion and cultural freedom. I'm suggesting that the government get out of the business and no longer be concerned with whether or not you celebrate your German/Protestant adjunct or your blackness/whiteness or your Lebanese/Muslim/Christian/Druze adjunct etc.etc. You can be as religious or culturally grounded as you please just leave the rest of us out of it and especially our tax dollars. It's immaterial to most whether you go to Church of a Sunday or Mosque on Saturday, are Jewish, white, black, orange or a genetically pure Aryan or a genetic and cultural stew. Of course if your going to make an issue of religion and culture don't be surprised if some believe that their religion or culture is superior to another. That is plain old human nature and a cause of major social conflict. Multiple societies compete. Providing for that condition under the auspices of one nation is failed governmental programming and is for the most part what has lead to the horrendous state of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. There is no such thing as apart and united as a single workable concept.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:02:01 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
Aqvarivs, re:
"You can be as religious or culturally grounded as you please just leave the rest of us out of it and especially our tax dollars."

Good luck on that one. How will you convince your current government (or the next) to stop funding (for example) chaplains and non-secular schools?

Where, if you succeeded in your lobbying, would the extra money go? Better services and infrastructure for ordinary people? Stronger defenses and alliances? Bigger tax breaks for the corporate world? More advertising and other business subsidies? Or would it, as "lower taxes" never leave your pocket?

Would you say, then, that your posts above express an embedded theme of lower taxes to special interest groups, including religious groups and cultural groups, including Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders?

Why are Australian native peoples less appropriate recipients of tax dollars than large corporations, who are either directly subsidised or are able to claim large tax breaks? Why are they less deserving beneficiaries of the common wealth than my local school, secullar or not, submitting a grant application for a water tank or new toilet block, or myself, submitting a rebate application for a solar hot water heater or my annual tax return prepared with the assistance of a shrewd tax accountant?

Is it because because Aborigines have culture, but I have a family? Is it because Aboriginals living in the bush are leading third world lives, while large corporations and their lobbies, in their embodiment of first world energy and materials flows, have far greater influence over the current government?

Does it all boil down, for you, down to a dislike of paying taxes?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 7:00:38 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
Kartiya Jim wrote:

"3.The Federal Government to make Australia Day and Invasion Day TWO public holidays."

Super idea. Let's enshrine division and hatred within Australian society for all time by means of an annual reminder of the fact that prior standards of dealing with each other are not as good as they are now. And for anyone stupid enough to question that, tell me honestly that you would prefer to be alive 220 years ago with all that would entail for your personal freedoms (for the vast majority), health etc.

Shall we have an invasion day for every other nation that has ever seen an armed takeover of land and forced dispossession within its borders? We better get busy with a new calendar or rotate through on a 12 year basis or something.. Invasion Day??!?!? How is that helpful to anyone?

Pull your head out of wherever it is and look at how real people get on with their lives and make real progress.. and let me give you a hint; it isn't through fostering a sense of perpetual victimhood
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 9:26:24 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
Sir Vivor, if one was to succeed there would be no extra money. There would be sufficient taxation to see to the common wealth of the nation. All for one and one for all. Not this beggars pool that exists today. Every one has culture. It's hardly the defining social moment. Well, except for the multiculturalist. The Aboriginals I've spoken with convey with little difficulty that they would like a little more than reliance on culture. Some have actually had the temerity to suggest that with general access to health care, education, employment opportunities, and three square meals a day they might even produce more cultural enterprises to draw in the tourista. But hey, gotta keep them abro's segregated and confined to the reserves. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more. Say no more.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 1:44:52 PM
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
kartiya jim and aquarivs,

Thanks. Busy: Will come back. However,

kj: If the points you list were {poof!} to happen, what 3 or 4 things must the aboriginal clans do to complement?

Your point three seems contentious. Instead of having conflicting histories, why not drop Australia Day, after all, it has more to do with the invasion by the British Crown against an unsuspecting indigenous peoples [note plural] and to the misfortune of hapless convicts, who otherwise would have spent their days on hulk on the Thames. In lieu, we could have [1901] Federation Day.

Ownership of land by any people would be inconsistent with an animist tribal culture. Any treaty would need to be with the tribal spirits and human negotiators. T

Lee Yuan Yew chose English as a compulsory language to moderate Chinese and Malay centrism. Maybe, all Australians should be encouraged to learn one offshore language than that spoken at home. Perhaps, linguists could find the most representative language of the Aboriginal language group and that could be offered, but only compulsory to the appropriate stream, say languages. Having 50 different regional languages taught would be nightmare to administer.

Do you feel anomous towards today's Japanese because their great-grand parents bombed Darwin? I don't, as stated in an earlier post.

Regards.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 6:53:40 PM
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
Good to see you back, Oliver, but now you're off again, busy. I hope you have some busy-time to craft an answer to my question from 15 July:

"Oliver, you say:
"Elders have power in a clan community and community members will listen: But age-related patriarchs will wish to maintain its community’s cultural status quo, and, therefore, have a stake in perpetuating ecologically non-compliant systems. Instead, Elders need to accept reality, and promote the model of modernity, whilst preserving past legacies."

"Ecologically non-compliant systems"? Interesting. What is it you mean? How is such compliance or non-compliance determined?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 15 July 2007 9:34:04 PM"

~?~

And I'm still curious about what you mean, by ecological non-compliance.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 10:28:10 PM
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
The Stickman and Oliver ,

Not wanting to cause division unnecessarily ,perhaps we should follow along the lines of the Kiwis and call our new public holiday an Australian version of "The Treaty of Waitangi Day ".

As far as I know most New Zealanders do not have a problem with this celebration of gold arm-band history,why should we?

Those white Kiwis rugby players and fans even roar their HAKA in ridgy didge MAORI- now that has to be unifying .

I realise that many older Australians may find the concept of a Treaty difficult to live with ,but it must surely happen for a modern Australia to be seen in the world as a country with a reasonable conclusion to it's colonising of Aboriginal Land and a determination to make Peace with with those that waved us away as we arrived .
Posted by kartiya jim, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:16:15 PM
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
Aquarivs,

"... main issue with multiculturalism is we have all these societies to caretaker instead of a single vibrant society exhibiting pride of accomplishment from family ties through pride of state and nation."

No all societies are equal to the task of integrating with other societies. Where kin altruisim, familialism and tribalism are less culturally evident, the poential of the achievement of cross-cultural harmony is threatened. Nor suggesting doing away with families or some affinity with culural heritage, but one cannot have an effective heterogenous nation-state in a globalising world more mutualism in the locus of said society.

Sir Visor,

Sorry, I might not have chosed my words well. I am saying that one must adopt bevaviours which comply to the Laws of Ecology as these are experienced in the here and now. The true nation state has existed for about two hundred years and we are now in a globalising world, our cultural practices [technology, sociology, ideology] must be fit for the present, not the past, not even the future, rather, now.

Kartiya Jim,

The Treaty of Waitagi is highly evident to affairs in NZ. The were issues with regards to the meaning of Queen Victoria's sovereinty lost in translation. As mentioned above, regading the ownership of land, a tribal treaty would need to incorporate the spirits of the land to enjoin all peoples to the land. That is enjoin the 3 or 4 waves of people [including 1788+] with the Land. Compensation and Ownership are outside this model.

Australia didn't colonise the Continent [and Tasmania and NZ], Britain did. There are historial accounts of indigineous Australians feeling sympathy for the mistreatment of the convicts by the Crown.

In finding common ground, a break with the Crown and an enjoining peoples, as a above? Relevant to post WWII non-British immigrants too.

If not three, can you come up with two ways indiginous peoples must change to achieve unity with wider Australia?
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 19 July 2007 4:27:28 PM
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
Oliver, re:

"I am saying that one must adopt bevaviours which comply to the Laws of Ecology as these are experienced in the here and now. The true nation state has existed for about two hundred years and we are now in a globalising world, our cultural practices [technology, sociology, ideology] must be fit for the present, not the past, not even the future, rather, now."

Can you kindly state these Laws of Ecology? I am not familiar with them as such.

And I have not seen the term "ecologically non-compliant" prior to your use of it. I assume that use of this term means that one Law or more has broken or ignored. I'm hoping you can explain.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 19 July 2007 6:16:09 PM
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
jim

yep - now you are making more sense.. and I concur with whoever said we might have to change the date - I can see how Jan 26th would be potentially unhelpful going forward if the issue is to be resolved..

the concept of "invasion day" only exists as a reaction to the existence of Australia day anyway, so maybe an Australian republic (go the Ruddster!) can lose the Queen's birthday holiday forelock-tug in June and rename that Australia day? in the interests of not losing a holiday from the calendar, maybe Jan 26th can be renamed for what it is - national get on the piss and watch the cricket over a barbie day!
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 19 July 2007 6:29:05 PM
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
Sir Vivor,

"Can you kindly state these Laws of Ecology? I am not familiar with them as such. ...And I have not seen the term "ecologically non-compliant" prior to your use of it."

Thanks for your interset. I am not paraphasing someone else nor am I borrowing terms. That said, socio-anthropologist, Harry Trandis, suggests, personality is a product of culture and culture a product of ecology. Where the culture is out of touch with the environment [laws of ecology, if you will, my words, e.g, adapt of else], it is at risk. We are a heterogeneous national state in a globaling world, tribal values might nor suffice to survive. Herein, it is better to reposition life style as heritage, and live in accordance with the present environment
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 19 July 2007 7:56:10 PM
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
Oliver, with each post I think I'm getting a clearer picture of your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. As I see it you place the onus of change or adaptation on the Aborigine vis a vie kinsmanship/tribe/cultural socialisations in regards to the “todays” nation state which is Australia and any forward or socially progressive movement.
On the other hand, while not in total disagreement with such thinking, I believe it is incumbent upon the government and non-government interests to remove themselves from “the right” they have taken upon themselves to direct Aborigine affairs before this nation can ask the Aboriginal people to accept any participation as free Australians with in an all encompassing Australian society. For it isn't the Aborigine practice of kinsmanship that has set them outside conventional society but, rather government policy regarding the management of Aboriginal affairs. Consider the immense change over the last 200 years. Begining with the 1700's and the civil codes, the age of exploration, the industrial revolution, the steam engine, mass production, scientific method, radio, flight, automobiles, right up to today and computing hardware and nano-technologies. The Aboriginal has not missed any of this progress, has lived and grown and given birth to successive generations over the same periods of time. The only difference is that the government spoon fed the Aborigine and predetermined their course, their ability to cope with the changing times and whether they were or were not capable of utilising the technology as it arrived. Everyone else rose or fell according to their own lights while every advantage was pushed on them whether they liked it or not. Every government since 'first fleet' has treated the Aboriginals through policy management as if they, the Aborigine, could not tie their own shoes to save their lives. That perception and the concomitant policy of 'management' has lead us to the dire straits faced by the Aboriginal people today. They never were given an honest chance to join in and to grow with the rest of us. They were 'reserved' for further management.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 20 July 2007 6:08:04 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
aqvarivs,
Too true unfortunately .
In the book "Survival in our own Land" [a good read] ,edited by Christobel Mattingley and told by "Nungas and others" , [1986] ,there are numerous storys of the early 1900's in South Australia when capable Nungas pleaded with Land Comissioners and protectors to be alloted their own land to be self sufficient.

Aboriginal Joseph Koolmatrie of Meningie wrote in a series of letters to officials in vain in April 1923 to get his own land. "...I want to school my children ".

The local landowner J G Williams did not want him, according to the local policeman M C Northbridge, "to get a Footing".

His application rejected, it took until 1977 for Janis Koolmatrie to graduate with a Teaching Diploma.

In the Early history of Gippsland sucessfull Aboriginal Agriculture on missions caused problems and was discouraged when effecient production [From memory it was peas] increased competition for white farmers in the market.

Simply entitled to Sympathy - I don't think so ! .
Posted by kartiya jim, Friday, 20 July 2007 10:07:20 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
Acquarivs,

In preface, I would say that any society, group or individual must not be at too greater odds with its ecology... One can be the world’s greatest runner, but that does not help when one cannot swim and thte boat is sinking in the middle of the Pacific. In this context kinship behaviour is in appropriate, when it postures to be parallel with the dominant nation state society.

As you say there has been “immense change” in the past 200 years, but, it needs to be remembered babies, indigenous or otherwise are born in the twenty-first century, and, herein, start life with an equal chance to adapt. In the case of the aboriginal baby, that infant, is nurtured in an environment of familialism, kinship and stories about their relationship with the dominant culture.

Where many aboriginals missed-out engaging technological progress [your impressive list], this is case of non-engagement, given the parents had a choice to educate their children when opportunities were available [from the State], the technological outcome is a consequence of a non-adaptive sociological reality. Moreover, contra-ideologies develop to entrench non-adaptation: Archaism and Futurism and unwillingness to live in the result [Arnold Toynbee]. Engagement in the Present system is avoided.

- More points to come

Kartiya jim,

“Survival in our own Land” is a curious title. I doubt before 220 hundred years ago indigenous persons from any of the previous migrations could comfortably accept it. The Land is spirits and spirits are the Land. Land could not be “owned”, in the sense it is Estate, as with the Lords of the Manor.

Even with the first Sumerians Land was administered by Priesthoods on behalf of God(s). Terra Nullius is nonsensical: Yes. But so is Land Rights, when the culture one promotes doesn’t recognise the same. What has occurred with Land Rights is a Creole between the factual past regarding historical inhabitation of the Land and the Western concept fixed Landed Wealth. An adversorial Creole.

- Three changes aboriginal communities must make?
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 21 July 2007 2:11:45 PM
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
yes, it just happenned, not different to global warming, iraq, world war one and two, world poverty, and terrorism....the list goes on.

The west can't be held accountable for its own agency..just as em!
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 21 July 2007 2:24:03 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
Rainier,

My comments were addressing essentially popular misconcepts not accountabilities. Australia is accountable for the good welfare all its citizens. If aboriginal communities need special help, so be it.

What Toynbee states is supported by Quigley, who also studied the paths taken by civilizations.

"Land Rights". Land... discussed above. "Rights"...the aboriginals do not accept their dominion of the land was extinguished by conquest: That is the unimproved Land. Moreover, the Wealth generated by Western Science arising from the Great Divergence [c.1750], bears some similarities with "cargo cults", wherein the wealth and goods [from the Gods in true cargo cults] have been misdirected away "from us" [the primitive society] to the advanced society. An injustice is claimed to exist.

Rainier, resolution requires being detached from passionate issues, studying the situation, externally, and, implementing plans after objective analysis. Just as the Crown/Commonwealth must be accountable for the consequencies of the British innovation, no doubt; cutural distortions by indigenous people need to be recognised. All parties need to put the facts on the table. For example, the British did commit genicide [West must admit], and,likewise, an animist clan would not have a concept of ownership in Estate of the Land [Indinous people must admit]. [Both of the aforementioned West/Clan would support from reliable sources].
After the confession session, we can progress. But is hard for Westerners to take responsibily from the invasion and the needs of their forefathers: And, it is hard for contemporary indigenous Australians to recognise their forefathers would not accept the ownership of land in the modern sense.

P.S. Very Simply: WWI was largely between Western nation states based nationalistic idelologies, ruling family alliances and treaties. Hilterism and WWII was result of Germany binging crushed by reparations. In the Pacific resources were denied to Japan, encouraging the militarist empire to expand via annexation, and, to establish a Sphere of Co-prosperity. Iraq. Of course, it is about the oil and a presence in the region.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 21 July 2007 3:18:23 PM
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
Oliver,

re:
" ... socio-anthropologist, Harry Trandis, suggests, personality is a product of culture and culture a product of ecology. Where the culture is out of touch with the environment [laws of ecology, if you will, my words, e.g, adapt of else], it is at risk."

Perhaps you can provide me with a key publication of Harry Triandis. What I found, of his eminent work, after a brief search, does not allow me to draw the same conclusions as you seem to draw.

I also do not understand how you apply these still-unstated laws of ecology so as to conclude which cultures and/or communities may be doomed as a result of being "out of touch" with the environment. What necessary and sufficient attributes would a community need to be "in touch"?

You seem to pass judgement on un-named "Aboriginal elders" on the basis of facts, assumptions and opinions which, for me, need more clarification. I'm hoping you have the patience to indulge me with further explanation.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Saturday, 21 July 2007 3:22:47 PM
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
Oliver, "One can be the world’s greatest runner, but that does not help when one cannot swim and thte boat is sinking in the middle of the Pacific."

Bit late to be trying to convince the poor bugger he's a champeen with the ol' Oz crawl when he's up to his armpits in sharks and never been closer to the ocean than lake Mungo. Itself dry for the last 20,000 years. :-)

To abuse an old analogy; we've been giving them fish for 200 years rather than teaching them to fish for themselves, and now at this date we're wondering why they aren't professional deep sea fishermen like the rest of us(which of course we all most patently are not [see addendum]).

(The Aborigine, incl. the Torres Strait Islanders make up approx 2.5% of the total Australian population. While according to the Government’s ‘welfare dependency’ statistics, such 'dependency' (inclusive) can reach as high as 20% of the total Australian population.)

With a little subtraction one can see a greater number of Australians outside of the Aboriginal community are themselves poor fishermen.
I can only surmise that they too have cultural and familiar reasons for enjoying similar conditions. A policy of dependency on the Crown instituted by the Crown for the Crown.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 21 July 2007 4:24:45 PM
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
Is OLO quality assurance slipping?

I've read better/informed graffiti.

Here we have an old navel gazer lamenting throwing together a bunch of memories with a peppering of his own bigoted ideals.

Has he ever had any engagement with Indigenous people? No

Has he ever worked in this area of policy? No

Has he done any research for this piece? No

Has he done anything that would support some expertise in this area of public life? NO

Is he the full quid? NO

OLO, I realize that its important to provide a forum for all types of views but this one is scaping at the bottom of the barrel
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 22 July 2007 12:26:12 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
“After a brief search, does not allow me to draw the same conclusions as you seem to draw”.

- What contra conclusions did you draw and on what studies and what basis? Else, we will be playing aimless ping-pong on this thread. What do understand to be the relationship between ecology and culture and behaviour? How do you see the relationship between ecology and culture and behaviour pertinent/not pertinent to clan~ to~ nation-state relationships? Will contribute “your” opinion on the thread topic, please. Kindly build and present an argument based “your” insights.

“Also do not understand how you apply these still-unstated laws of ecology so as to conclude which cultures and/or communities may be doomed as a result of being "out of touch" with the environment.”

-The points I am making about ecology can be gleaned from my comments. Essentially, my wording is a generic like the Laws of Survival. An overarching Law might be to adopt behaviours appropriate to one’s environment and avoid behaviours that are inappropriate behaviours. My runner-swimmer metaphor illustrates.

You seem to pass judgement on un-named "Aboriginal elders" on the basis of facts, assumptions and opinions which, for me, need more clarification. I'm hoping you have the patience to indulge me with further explanation.

- Elders have high status in communal [in-group] association, such as clans: It does not follow elders are particularly knowledgeable about clan-to-larger society socialisation dynamics relevant to cross-cultural analysis. Moreover, the elders have a stake in being elders and, --unless the individual elder has actually studied inter/cross culture happenings in history-- it would unlikely an elder could guide the solution. That said, elders’ authority in in-group clans could be leveraged to advantage.

- Thank you for you critique. Please articulate your position on the topic, so I can do likewise.


Acqarivs,

Thanks. One’s group needs to “want” to learn how to fish. Socialisation is required.

Rainier,

Demonstrate you can do better.Tell us what you would do? Articulate your solution. [It is one thing to whinge, it is another to contribute.]
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 22 July 2007 4:02:08 PM
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
Rainier

I agree with you that this 'article' is scraping the bottom of the barrel. But at least it's obvious. No one's going to argue with you there.

The 'articles' I think are the most contemptable are the ones written by the 'economist' or the 'analyst' of some description.

These guys think they're entitled to write on a whole range of issues outside their field of expertise, and are somehow convinced that they know what they're talking about.

But what's even worse than that, is that the publishers, particularly OLO and newspapers such as The Australian, think that tagging 'economist' onto the byline, somehow gives their opinion pieces some authority.
Posted by Liz, Sunday, 22 July 2007 5:13:00 PM
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
A quick Google retrieves "Laws of Ecology" aplenty. Try

http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/water-efficiency/water-conference/motueka/tsld002.htm

The Four Laws of Ecology

1. Everything is connected to everything else
2. Everything must go somewhere
3. Nature knows best
4. There’s no such thing as a free lunch

Attributed to Barry Commoner.

Now we all have a clear statement of "the laws of ecology".

As for your references to anthropology and cross-cultural psychology,
Oliver, I doubt that you know what you are talking about.

I see little point in adding my own amateur opinions, as I have only the most indirect connection with the realities experienced by Aboriginals living in rural and outback Australia
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 23 July 2007 8:46:14 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
Sir Vivor,

I rarely use Google [nor wikipedia]and didn't on this occasion, preferring more reliable sources. Your author seems to refer to Ecological Systems despite the truncated label. Culture interacts with this environment.

- I have no contact with the aboriginal community beyond one family of urban aboriginals, who are friends. As I am offshore, we have little contact.

- The front-end of the Concept Model of my PhD involved the influence of cultural antecendents on knowledge management. Consequently, I am read in the area of civilizations and histographies as a result.

- The author you cite seems to presenting Liberace as Rubinstein. He is very proficient but not Kroeber or Kluckholn or Berry. Moreover, my guess, based on the PP slide, as stated, to me, addresses ecological systems, not relationships with ecology - our topic.

- You are probably ignorant of the fact that [although dated] Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, Caroll Quigley and William McNeill [my source for civilizational and histographical background] are leagues ahead in the credibility stakes than a common garden variety prof. selling his paperbacks. Likewise, Harry Trianidis and Alan Page Fiske are more relevant to our topic than the Laws posited by Barry Coomer. My readings include truly distinguished scholars and recognised as such by their peers. Herein, Triandis, who has studied acculuration extensively, defines

Culture as,

"a set of human-made objective and subjective elements that have in the past have increased the probability of survival...".

Thus, Culture "A" might be successful in Ecology "A", but, it migh "not" be successful in Ecology "B". The aboriginal community can learn from this guide.

/cont..
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 23 July 2007 10:37:33 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
Thank you, Oliver, for some clarification, and congratulations on your distinguished reading.

I am intrigued by "The front-end of the Concept Model of [your] PhD", but expect that it is unavailable in Australia, unless you have posted it on a website. If you are able to provide me with a link or a reference, I would be further interested, but until then (or perhaps indefinitely), I will simply have to wonder if your thesis also has a complementary, arse-end Concept Model.

As for Ecology A or Ecology B, I would risk painting vast strokes, with a broad brush indeed, were I to attempt to argue my prediction of who might have the Ecology odds in their favour - a given remote Aboriginal community, or me and my suburban neighbours. Better just put my money on my guess, and hope I can win or lose in the style to which I am accustomed. I would tell you how I might bet, but that could tip the odds.

By the way, can the Triandis definition of culture which you offered be found on the web?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 23 July 2007 12:02:18 PM
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
Sir Vivor - your hubris is obscene.

Rather than just be gracious and admit that Oliver may have significant knowledge and material to contribute on this topic, you sit there and make smart-arse jibes about his PhD.

More to the point, rather than just admit that you don't agree with what he is saying and try to come up with sensible alternatives, you make snide comments and denigrate the man.

Short of being a public figure, very few people's bona fides are available on this site - when posters contribute with some sort of coherent argument, maybe you could take it on faith that they have done what they say they have done (until such time as they prove they are misrepresenting themselves) without resorting to cheap shots - which you seem unable to resist.
Posted by stickman, Monday, 23 July 2007 3:25:06 PM
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
stickman,

Thanks. The Forum is an excellent venue for exchanging ideas. Unfortunately, it is magnet to to snipers and those whom wish to criticise and not contribute and, say what is wrong without suggesting alternative posits.

Sir Vivor,

One of the URLs providing Triandis' definition follows shortly. I read the definition in a book, written by Triandis titled, "Culture and Social Behaviour" [1994. p22].

http://www.academicdb.com/culture_sociology_social_anthropology_is_beliefs_b_14241/

When reading comments on the thread be aware many contributors have background knowledge drawing on legitimate sources which are synthesised as opinions and idea. This is called synthesis.

Moreover, according to Bloom [1956], "synthesis" sits on a higher cognitive domain than does "reproduction", herein, putting and pasting from the Internet]. A contributor can justly blend readings and offer argument/ideas in that context.

When writing to this Forum, I try not to use specialised terms such as etics & emic and West II, which would be readily understood by an anthropologist or historian, yet, perhaps, not a clerk, butcher or general scientist; so, on reflection, my more advanced studies [terminologies anyway] are irrelevant. I mentioned my background, because you overtly asserted, I didn't know what I was talking about.

Let us leave it there. Go bother someone else.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 11:45:37 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
Kartiya Jim

- Three changes aboriginal communities must make?

Regards,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 3:30:02 PM
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
Oliver and stickman,
My preference is to gather information before expressing an opinion. I found that gathering information from Oliver about his ecology-based assumptions was difficult indeed - questions got answered with questions and vague verbiage.

What particularly got me going was a mishmash of ill-defined terminology - eg ecologically non-compliant. What does that mean? Does the link below provide context-based definition? I didn't find any others.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/6813.pdf

Or consider the "Laws of Ecology": the devil is in the detail, and I don't see a lot of detail in your remarks, Oliver. Instead, there is a trend toward summary of all four laws into:

"Where the culture is out of touch with the environment [laws of ecology, if you will, my words, e.g, adapt of else], it is at risk. "

With no detail, how do we guess which culture may be "out of touch"? Without any criteria or ground truthing, I just can't guess. And we I both confess to only the remotest connections with remote Aboriginal communities. Your posts somehow suggest to me that you think you know best, about people and places you've never encountered.

As for my own area of expertise, I have a BSc in science; biological sciences and chemistry. I keep current in my reading and follow arguments in environmental science. I am particularly interested in the application of ecological systems modeling. Other of my posts on OLO mention HT Odum, and his pioneering work on modelling energy and materials flows. A general introduction can be found in "Modeling for All Scales: An Introduction to Systems Simulation".

Odum's work may interest you, as it provides a pathway toward providing quantitative aguments pertinent to Commoner's Laws 2 and 4, in both natural and built environmentsThus it might help in comparing "Ecology A" with "Ecology B".
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 4:56:25 PM
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
Sir Vivor.

See my last post on this thread. I know I am dealing with sniper, and after today I have no interest in dialogue with you.

That said,

Barry Commoner seemingly is addressing Ecological “Systems”:

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/ECOLOGY/project.html

Commoner is addressing the dynamics of ecological "systems".

Alternatively, the works of historians and antropologists, I have cited, adress the conjunction of societies and the interface between ecology and culture. Cultures must comply [v. act in accordance with] the laws [n.general princples deduced from the facts] of ecology [n. the study of the relationship between living things and their enviroment]. [Ref: CPD]

Commoner doesn't have a monolopoly on the term, Laws of Ecology. I used these words as words in my English sentence.

Having spend all this time gatherinng information and contemplating the topic and defining what other posters "don't" know. What do you know about the topic? What is your contribution
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 3:05:48 PM
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
dver, re:

"Having spend all this time gatherinng information and contemplating the topic and defining what other posters "don't" know. What do you know about the topic? What is your contribution"

Oliver, if you wish to lay claim to your own "Laws of Ecology", be my guest. Hopefully you can provide a lasting contribution to human knowledge, and your statements of the patterns you describe will be more precise and amenable to quantitative expression than Barry Commoner's 4 laws.

Likewise, you may be able to come up with a useful definition of "ecologically non-compliant". One which both ecologists, cr4oss-cultural psychologists and anthropologists find valuable.

My contribution, for you: you could also add Gregory Bateson to your reading list. Try "Steps to an Ecology of Mind". Bateson had some interesting insights into psychology and anthropology. Maybe he added, in some way, to my idea that it's presumptuous to make recommendations about folks I've never met, whose way of life I don't really understand. I made a similar comment in my last post, but it must have gone under your radar.

Also, I would recommend that you compose in a word-processing program with a spell-checker and grammar checker. I find my work is easier to understand for doing so, and well worth the extra time it takes.

You may choose to view these comments as "sniping", but there is also the possibility that I'm trying to be helpful.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 7:06:49 PM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

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