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. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. Page 20
  10. 21
  11. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. Page 20
  10. 21
  11. All

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