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 > General Discussion > Selfish

Selfish

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Its well known that by nuture human beings are selfsh.This type of nature has made the world left behind most especially in the developing countries.I am an African i have seen this keeping us behind,were by a rulling governments fevores a group of pepple were the leader comes from.
However life is what u make it,u can chance the nature if u decide to.
NTALE FRE
Posted by JAVAN, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:17:08 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
Dear Javan
thankyou soooo MUCH for making the point some of us have been trying to make about 'MultiCulturalism' for sooooo long.. IT DOESN'T WORK....

It doesn't work because people:

a) Seek power for themselves and their own ethnic/cultural group.
b) Look after their own ethnic group.
c) Favor their own ethnic group.

So glad that you, as an African can clealry explain this, and I must warn you though, that speaking the politically incorrect truth like that will not win you any popularity contests here.. except with those of us who share your truthful realistic view.

There are those here who will read your post, then.. will morph into some kind of creature from another planet and deny what you said on ideological grounds.

Still...the 'truth' is there.. in your first post for all of them to read...let's hope the headache they get from the cognitive dissonance associated with holding a 'belief' which is contrary to life will not be too severe.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 23 July 2010 9:27:06 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
I think that it is only fair to point out, Boaz, that your post is completely at odds with the issues raised in JAVAN's thread-opener.

But as the old saying goes, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It is not, as you try to infer, a paean of praise for selfishness.

It is actually trying to point out to you that voting in such an "ethnically selfish" manner is actually bad for people and society.

Far from being a "politically incorrect truth", it is a simple observation on the problems it has created in what JAVAN refers to as the "world left behind".

The fact that you think it is a good idea to re-create those selfish voting patterns here in Australia a) is not at all surprising and b) speaks volumes about your approach to those who do not share your ultra-narrow world-view.

But it's just par for the course for you, is it not. Mix up a little deliberate misunderstanding with a smattering of xenophobia and hey presto! another post from Boaz.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 23 July 2010 9:55:25 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
Al, I believe Javan was offering that we can change if we want to as per his/her last sentence.

Human beings have always protected their 'group' through fear of invasion or reduction of living standards (real or perceived). This was true of ancient times in a bloodier primitive 'invade or be invaded' mentality to modern times where the battles are also fought from a base of fear, either through economic or direct invasive measures.

The good news is we are evolving - after all we have moved away from small clan type tribes who fought those within the same ethnicity - hence the GROUP became larger to encompass all citizens. One might suppose this trend can grow outwards to eventually encompass all humans. Well...it is a possibility anyway in time, given the world is getting smaller ethnicity-wise.

Even free trade would be a good thing if there were a level playing field ensuring all citizens of any nation were able to earn a living wage, and nations were able to retain the right to import what they needed rather than what is forced under sometimes dubious trade agreements. But I digress.

This is getting to be a longer post than intended - must shake some of this public service taint off me long enough to be able to talk in short sentences.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 23 July 2010 10:02:23 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
Free trade would be good so long as Pelican got to dictate the terms of it?
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:00:04 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
Welcome Javan,

"Its well known that by nuture human beings are selfish"

Actually, it is not the humans who are selfish - it is their genes who are.

Genes dictate that the bodies under their control first help themselves, then in decreasing order, those with the largest subsets of common genes.

"However life is what u make it,u can chance the nature if u decide to"

EXACTLY! that is, if we consciously choose to overthrow the dictatorship of our genes.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:15:34 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
There are many on OLO that deny the obvious. (ie is we are selfish and corrupt). Only Christ can change a person from the inside out. I suppose that is why nations that have had a Christian view have been by far the most generous in history. Places like India with their untold wealth allow their poor to rot because they are of a different caste. Despite secular lies Christians are generally by far the most generous givers. Secularist are very generous with Government and other peoples money.
Posted by runner, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:20:42 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
Sure, if all Christians followed the teachings of Jesus 100%, they would be less selfish than most people.

But they don't, and they're not.

Inate human selfishness, which starts with a need for survival and security, and works up to a need for social status, self-actualisation, etc. (Read Maslow), is why Communism can't work. It's not an evil concept, it's just unworkable because people don't like being forced to give anything up.

Humans are selfish, and it is the root of all that is wrong with the world. Christians are human and no different, regardless of what they think about themselves.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:40:08 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
Runner,

Being generous is a reasonably-good technique for loosening the control of the genes over us, but just giving away is not enough: we must do so wisely to ensure that the proceeds of our generosity goes towards the good and well-being of others, rather than to aid their genes. Genes are non-sentient mechanisms, ever hungry to multiply. By all means, do serve Others, but serving others' genes is not a good deed.

TrahscanMan,

I agree with many things you said, but communism IS evil because it is materialistic. It claims that we are bodies, denying our spiritual essence as beings capable of, and thriving on, free choice. If for example we are forced to give things up, then we are denied opportunites to be generous and give up those same things out of free choice, thus we are denied opportunites to loosen the control of genes over us - this is not good!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:52:07 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
No, Communism is pooling all resources and sharing everything out equally among the community. I can't see how that is evil.

Many small tribal communities live that way, and they are hardly materialistic.

Free choice? It's a selfish concept. The free choice of a completely unselfish person would be to ensure everyone got a fair share.

The problem is that humans by nature do not choose that option. So communism, to work, would have to enforce it. AS you say, taking away free choice.

I'm all for freedom of choice, don't get me wrong. It's one of the great things about our society, and I would never deny anyone freedom of choice. And I am not advocating the introduction of Communism by any means. I'm just pointing out that Communism is not an evil concept, it's just an unsuitable system for the human race, purely because of our selfish nature. But I wouldn't change that.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Friday, 23 July 2010 12:13:59 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
Yuyutsu:>> Actually, it is not the humans who are selfish - it is their genes who are.<<

Y, a fine observation. Our programming like all living things has a directive to survive. In the animal kingdom this drive is put into neutral in many females of the species during nurturing, when the mother will be protective of her young even if her life is endangered. This act is not one of "free will" it is a supplemental to the prime directive to ensure the survival of the species not just the individual.

We humans have the ability to over ride the prime directive because we have a "free will". We commit suicide, we kill others for reasons other than survival, we favor one person over another for a plethora of reasons, we change the status of the favored if they displease us, in short our minds can conceive then direct the body to physically react to any scenario it can conjure up.

What controls our minds from wholesale hedonistic behavior is the family unit and society as a whole. There are rules and punishments both in interpersonal relationships and societal relationships that we adhere to because our chances of survival outside the family unit or society are decreased markedly. We need others.

So Javan the behavior you describe in your place of birth is human and expected, we favor those close to us or that we are dependent on or have been dependent on. We pay our emotional debts to those who have aided us. If the shoe was on the other foot and your ethnic group or faction back in Africa was in control and the others subservient, you would not be complaining and focusing on the negative aspects of human interaction. You would be busy justifying in your mind that the others are lesser than you so as to overcome emotional guilt regarding the inequity of human to human relationships.

Javan use the spelling checker.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 23 July 2010 12:18:06 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
Very interesting, TrashcanMan (sorry for earlier spelling your name wrongly),

Pooling all resources and sharing everything out equally, is not evil per se, and if a small tribal community lives that way happily without coercion, then I wouldn't call it communism, then it is a fact, not an ideology, it just happens to be that way for the time-being.

As noted by Runner, many Christians (and others) choose the option of generosity. Not 100% as did Jesus, but they exercise their free choice do determine their personal percentage. This is good (though imperfect as I noted earlier). Long term trial-and-error allows them to grow as individuals and gradually release themselves from their bondage to genes.

Free choice, to the degree that it is indeed free, and not for example subconsciously dictated by the remembered-voices of other influential people; or by one's own genes under a false identification with one's body, is the highest expression of who we are, or perhaps you could call it our "higher self". It is OK to call it "selfish", but in that case I would rather use a capital "Selfish" to distinguish it from actions born out of slavery to our genes.

"Fair share" is a very difficult and slippery concept to define, I wonder if anyone could, but in any case, I fail to see why it necessarily follows that "The free choice of a completely unselfish person would be to ensure everyone got a fair share".

First technically, "a completely unselfish person" must be either dead or unconscious, but I take the liberty to assume that what you rather actually meant, is a person who is not bound by their "little self", or by the day-to-day needs of his/her body and the constant cries and demands of his/her genes. I don't believe that the choices of such a person, being totally free, can be predictable. I would like to believe that the actions of such a person would be benevolent to all, is some wise sense, though not in such a gross materialistic sense as in "sharing all property equally".

Sonofgloin, Thank you.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:32:42 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
Dear Javan,

Welcome, and Thank You for raising
this topic. Of course we can change
if we want to. All we need do is apire to social
cohesion and respect for each other and ourselves
as Australians, and as human beings.

Since European settlement, and even long before
that, Australia has been host to diverse cultures.
It has never been and cannot now be considered
monocultural, regardless of the overwhelming
political, economic, and social dominance of
white Australians. The expectation that we should
all be some kind of "same" is not only impossible,
but it also lacks integrity.

Multiculturalism regardless how some "selfish" people
view it (who see life only through their own narrow
lens and want everyone to be "people like us."), is
not about being reactionary or anti-white. It is
about - aspiring to social
cohesion and respect for each other and ourselves
as Australians and as human beings.

We have to admit that social and political inequalities
feed separateness, and can lead to intolerance, racism,
and reactionary violence. That is the kind of self-centred
selfishness, that is damaging for us all.
It is precisely these kind of fears that the politicians
play on - especially by making asylum seekers - an
election issue.

As Germaine Greer said:

"Australian racism derives from the same bottomless
source as British racism, from universal ignorance,
working-class frustration, reinforced by an
unshakeable conviction of British superiority over
all other nations on earth, especially the swarthy ones!"

It is possible, and desirable, to speak - and even argue -
across social, religious, and cultural borders. The above
is not remotely a call for moral relativism. But it
requires a level of knowledge that a large proportion of
those engaged in the conversation are either too
arrogant or lazy to obtain. It requires people looking
at each other to see more that superficial appearances.
We need to look deeper. We live in an age where
ignorance is the prevailing influence of our times.
Whether this can be cured will depend as author, Waleed
Aly points out in his book - on "people like us".
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 23 July 2010 2:16:06 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
Dear Pericles

*It is actually trying to point out to you that voting in such an "ethnically selfish" manner is actually bad for people and society*

That was.... my point. (my exact point)

Pelly... see Peter Hume's response to you :)

We can 'be changed'.. yes, but 'change' ? hmmm well.. some people can, I guess I have to concede that, but it depends a lot of what type of change. Inner moral/spiritual condition ? I'm skeptical by observation, and absolutely unbelieving ideologically.

"You need to be born again" said Jesus to Nichodemus... I tend to agree.

Given that the Lord was able to

-Heal the sick
-Calm the storm
-Give sight to the blind
-Cast out the demon
-Enable the lame and paralyzed to walk.
-Raise the dead

I'll go with His opinon :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 23 July 2010 2:55:34 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
Foxy:>> Germaine Greer said, <<

Dear Foxy, Germaine has said many things and achieved little except notoriety. Another example of a no surprise comment from Germaine:

"The house wife is an unpaid employee in her husband's house in return for the security of being a permanent employee."

Germaine hates the patriarchal society and has never found contentment in a relationship, so her observations are tainted. Here is a quote from her ex," Our marriage lasted 3 weeks - and that was three weeks too long!". I really do not believe she has the balance to be a societal adjudicator on the interaction of the sexes.

This is the most intuitive comment I have come across from Germaine, and it is a gem of wisdom.

"If a person loves only one other person, and is indifferent to his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism."
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 23 July 2010 3:26:17 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
Foxy,
Be afraid very afraid you are starting to sound like me...well maybe if If I wrote in English.

I would amplify the criticism of those who hide behind the the notion that because it's in our 'human nature' to be selfish then that's it! 'it's normal" to allow ourselves to think and BEHAVE primally. By that I'm particularly referring to us against them 'the different' mentality.
Even on evolutionary need for this *tendency* to protect against difference has long past. It therefore seems to me to continually reinforce this basis is at best retrogressive. It is one thing to be aware of our origins but another thing entirely wanting to emulate it.

Some one said civilisation is on generation from the cave and one more from the trees.

Therefore, all that is civilised is learned/conditioned ergo conditioning ourselves to advance to the next level is neither impossible nor undesirable.

Who amongst us wants to go back to the cave times a life of total Brutishness unpredictability and total fea
Posted by examinator, Friday, 23 July 2010 3:27:11 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
examinator:>> Who amongst us wants to go back to the cave times a life of total Brutishness unpredictability and total fea <<

E,I will take the last word to be "fear". I do not think the advocates for genes over societal imprint believe selfishness is a valid emotion just because it exists, but to my experience perspective changes when we feel we are being disadvantaged. It is like we have an internal barometer that tells us when we have had our fair share. The problem is each barometer is set differently, but nearly all have a set point where self comes before others.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 23 July 2010 4:23:14 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
No kidding, Boaz? That's not how it came across at all.

>>[voting in such an "ethnically selfish" manner is actually bad for people and society] was.... my point. (my exact point)<<

So how does selfish voting relate to multiculturalism?

>>thankyou soooo MUCH for making the point some of us have been trying to make about 'MultiCulturalism' for sooooo long.. IT DOESN'T WORK..

Think of it this way.

If 100% of the people voted "selfishly" - as defined here - there would be no multiculturalism.

So by agreeing that "voting in such an 'ethnically selfish' manner is actually bad for people and society", you are also agreeing that "no multiculturalism" is also actually bad for people and society.

At least, that's the logical way to interpret your position. Do you see it differently?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 23 July 2010 5:38:36 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
Dear SOG,

Sometimes Germaine Greer does get it right.
I used that particular quote because I
thought it very apt. I used the quote not
because of "who" said it, but because
of "what" was said.

Dear Examinator,

Thank You for your kind words.

If I am becoming like you, then I will not
be afraid, I will be
very joyous indeed. Because you speak
only when you have something to say.
(As opposed to people who speak because
they have to say something).
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 23 July 2010 7:00:12 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
"Free trade would be good so long as Pelican got to dictate the terms of it?"

Well yes....everyone else is doing it thought I would join in. Seriously though I don't want to stray off-topic - my fault for throwing it in the first place.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 23 July 2010 7:36:18 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
Is the Human Being selfish

This basically asks a question. Which drives mankind? Is it his intellect or his biologically programmed need to survive?

There is much talk in human circles of great tolerance and love for the brotherhood of man. The talk doesn’t walk the walk though.

In reality man’s intellect is only a tool used to supply him/her with everything that a human being needs to survive. Food,shelter etc. Biological survival needs. That’s why we put such a high value on a university education because it can get us the kind of income that will provide for our biological survival needs at a high,plentiful level.

It is basic biology. All parents in nature, animal or man are biologically programmed to do whatever it takes to provide for their young, to even put themselves in danger or even to die to insure the survival of their offspring. To do this they need control of territorial resources such as the land and the water, the food and the shelter it provides.

If we are honest we will admit that we do not have much feeling for our unknown SAME race neighbour down the road, we couldn’t care really. But in an emergency we will help him and our community, because the protection of a sheltering community around us is an important biological survival tool for humans.

What we perceive as a wonderful community spirit in times of trouble is in fact a biologically programmed ultruism to enhance our individual chances of survival under the protection of the tribe.

The intellect is programmed by the biology to a very large extent. We do have some power of veto, but this will depend on the perceived threat to our well being or survival. Is the animal in the jungle who is driven by the same need to survive selfish when it takes or defends territory. The Germans took their territory back from the Jews and now the Palestinians are trying to do the same thing. Is it biology or nasty intolerance?
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 24 July 2010 1:22:03 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
FFS people. Have we all become so cynical and antihuman that some fool comes in here and states, with not a shred of evidence mind, "Its well known that by nature human beings are selfish" and you all just agree and affirm this delusion.
Are you all admitting your own "selfishness" or is it only "other people" who have this inbuilt flaw?
What about the massive evidence that humans are not by nature selfish? The care we give our families, love, friendship, aged care and all we do to protect ourselves be it medicine, risk management, security, defense. Our altruism, charity, the help we give when there is a disaster. The cooperation we show in so much of our lives whether it be simple courteousness or giving someone a hand, letting a car in at the lights, visiting someone in hospital, going to a wedding or funeral. I could go on forever.
I expect this from zealots like runner and algoreidiot with their ideology of eliteness and hatred of the heathen, but the rest of you should know better. Humans are not hard wired to be selfish and greedy they become that way by being exploited, impoverished, powerless and hopeless. Funnily enough they also become that way by being spoilt, pampered, wealthy and exalted.

"People are neither Rousseau’s noble savage nor the Church’s depraved sinner. They are violent when oppressed, gentle when free".
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 24 July 2010 6:43:39 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
On the subject of selfishness, one of whose permutations might be greed –here’s a word from the master:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 24 July 2010 8:21:07 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
Dear Javan,
I also would say that it's not that we are "selfish by nature". "Selfishness" is a moral and cultivated concept that has no place in nature, where the ruthless survival of the fittest is imperative. As cultural beings we develop sophisticated co-operative notions like unselfishness, which however we struggle to extend beyond the tribe. In the modern prosperous world, of course, tribal taboos have become national-cultural pluralism, indeed globalisation. We can no longer see the "other half's" strife and misery in a separate context to our own prosperity. Their poverty and our prosperity are interdependent; another inconvenient truth.
To the extent that we in the West do appear selfish by nature, It is more the case that our economic system is selfish in effect, and in harnessing the "natural" human drive to provide for oneself and secure the future of the clan (the profit motive drives this to obsessive pitch). Sophisticated western culture, with all its religio-ethical "sophistry", is exposed for what it is in the global context: monolithic selfishness (even while many many individuals within this monolith are driven to despair {indeed suicide} at their incapacity to opt-out).
This morning, on "Saturday Extra," I listened to "the sound of a baby dying of starvation".
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 24 July 2010 8:45:32 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
mikk,

Wise words.

It's the age-old conundrum experienced by homo sapiens sapiens...the biological drives from the "old brain" and the intellect from the new brain (neo-cortex).Our greatest challenge is getting the balance right.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 24 July 2010 8:46:57 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
Trashcanman says..... (ps..welcome to this forum)

1/ "Sure, if all Christians followed the teachings of Jesus 100%, they would be less selfish than most people."

COMMENT: Not quite trashy :) let me just add one qualifier.. "correctly intepreted/understood"

If we took your point at face value and understood Jesus words all literally, we would be blind and crippled with no eyes or hands or feet.

Then...
2/ "Many small tribal communities live that way, and they are hardly materialistic."

Trashy.. as one who lived for quite a while in a tribal situation, I assure you.. they are just as, if not more selfish than we are. It manifests in different ways though. Yes.. in the absense of refrigerators, if one managed to drag back a wild pig from the jungle, the meat is distributed among all the families. Not evenly, but a representative token. (not all tribes are the same for sure)

Pericles... I must have been on drugs :) if I didn't make my point clear enough for you. Sorry about that.
Still too early and toooo much 2 do 2day to tackle your other points in depth.. patience and if I need a reminder.. prod me in a day or 2.
Grandaughter clambering for "da kittens one" on youtube.. sigh..
Friends daughter scurrying around..cats driving me crazy (yes..those 'slaves' :) Son doing piano practice.. just been for a 5k walk....

I'll get back 2 ya. In the mean time, stay well.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:16:45 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
Al, I hope you are not on drugs in front of your grandchildren. ;)

Well said mikk, it is easy to become cynical about the nature of human beings. The results of negative behaviour stands out more due to its consequences, the good often lost in the noise of the other.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 24 July 2010 2:04:40 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
Squeers <This morning on Saturday Extra I listened to the sound of a baby dying of starvation>

It could well be your baby or grandchild you hear dying of starvation if ever you loose access to the richly providing territorial resources of the West. Resources like the mining industry that are proping up our prosperity very literally at the moment.

Millions more babies would have died across this globe if the Western Nations didn't provide billions in global welfare on a constant basis.

Some of the religions that the people in these countries believe in have the philosophy that they can pump out children until there is standing room only left in their countries and very little else left in the way of resource sustenance that hasn't been used up or depleted.

Then they look with envious eyes at other countries and say you should give us what you've got.

While the West keeps providing aid we save them from the consequences of their mismanagement or stupid overpopulating in the name of religion.

Maybe if they had to face the consequences of being almost decimated as the law of nature dictates they would change their leaders and way of doing things.

Babies have been crying as they died right across this planet from day one and we couldn't hear or see it because we have only had Television in Australia in the last 60-70years and we didn't have satellite television until later than that. Maybe television interferes with the natural order of things, nature certainly never asked for our assistance in all the thousands of years before.

I know this sounds harsh and I feel for the dying babies too but how far do we sacrifice our own children or put them at risk from the neverending demands of these people.

How much sacrifice is too much. It seems to me that the West and Europe is already buckling under the weight of all the hostile millions let across our borders in the name of human rights and compassion
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 24 July 2010 2:13:50 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
CHERFUL

I have no words for unspeakable people like you.
Your attitude makes me sick.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 24 July 2010 2:55:04 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
Squeers,
that's a very interesting comment to CHERFUL's observation. Could you please elaborate ? Thank you.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 24 July 2010 3:25:01 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
Squeers:>> CHERFUL I have no words for unspeakable people like you.
Your attitude makes me sick.<<

Squeers that was certainly unambiguous.

It is difficult to look tolerant in modern western society. Every common sense observation is deemed as racist, and we must be prepared to give up the nuances of "our" society to placate another.

This PC concept of accommodating immigrant’s cultural needs rather than just the physical needs that made them seek greener pastures can only disenfranchises my culture, and it is more than I am prepared to give. The west has given the unprecedented influx of Muslims safety, sustenance, housing, and still there is an agenda in every host nation of militancy and societal fragmentation by these same thankless Muslims. They did not even wait to be disadvantaged before calling for societal change.

Perhaps those who have seen a change in the society that they grew up in get sick to the stomach when they hear of a "target" defending the marksman whose sole aim is to destroy or change it significantly.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 24 July 2010 4:19:45 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
I intended to reply to CHERFUL'S post, but now that I'm here I find I really can't be bothered.

Squeers,

Thought you might be interest in this Reith 2000 lecture by Vandana Shiva.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 24 July 2010 7:24:59 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
I'll second that Squeers.
Appalling examples of straight out racism.
Sickening indeed!
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 24 July 2010 7:48:24 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
Poirot, so your rebuttal is to example the plight of a poor sod of the soil in the third world.

>> On March 27th, 25 year old Betavati Ratan took his life because he could not pay pack debts for drilling a deep tube well on his two-acre farm.<<

How am I more culpable for this event than you? I expect that is how you see it given you throw it up as the outrage that I somehow support, given my feed them ,house them, assimilate them, but do not allow them to become a culture within a culture is deemed racist to you.

You live in the first world you consume more than your share as do we all. But you have platitudes and good intentions to alleviate your portion of the guilt. If you feel so strongly you should follow the lead of some I know. They raised $8000 and flew to India and gave four increments of $2000 directly to village councils for infrastructure. They said that they felt they had done something practical rather than donating to an aid organisation, they got the idea on their last ashram odyssey so they were not strangers to the local’s plight.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:03:37 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
Sonofgloin,

My post was meant to be taken as it was written. I do not recall referring to your views.

My link was directed at Squeers, who I thought might be genuinely interested in Vandana Shiva's lecture.
Did you happen to read beyond the fifth paragraph and Betavati Ratan's fate - and excellent lecture on the value of diversity and the destruction wrought by western multi-nationals on developing countries.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:27:33 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
SQUEERS - I have no words for unspeakable people like you. Your attitude makes me sick.

Name calling usually starts when truths are pointed out that people don’t want to see because it goes against their cosy beliefs. Challenge me with direct questions about my views.
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:29:11 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
The author Waleed Aly, in his book,
"People Like Us," tells us:

"It seems to me that there is an inability
to understand the world from the perspective
of another. It is egocentricity that leads
some of us to assume our own historical
and social experiences are universal; to assume
that the solutions to our problems are the
solutions to everyone else's, even when the
circumstances surrounding them are entirely
different; to assume that the world would be so
much better if only everyone was like us.

There is arrogance here, but it is rarely
conscious. It can be very difficult to spot one's
own egocentricity. We often fail to appreciate
that our views of the world are shaped - even
created by the experiences we have had and the
environment in which we live. It is precisely
this failure that causes us to assume our worldview
is natural and objective. It is very rare indeed
that we recognise the limits of our own horizons.
And when we don't we tend to show no great concern
for the inherited wisdoms and histories of others."

Food for thought!
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 24 July 2010 11:48:20 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
POIROT

I read enough of the article you posted to comment on a couple of things.

The article states <EVERYWHERE FOOD PRODUCTION IS BECOMING A NEGATIVE ECONOMY, WITH FARMERS SPENDING MORE TO BUY COSTLY INPUTS FOR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION THAN THE PRICE THEY RECEIVE FOR THEIR PRODUCE. THE CONSEQUENCE IS RISING DEBTS AND EPIDEMICS OF SUICIDES IN BOTH POOR AND RICH COUNTRIES>

This article does say that rich countries are also affected negatively by global companies (just as well as I was about to point that fact out )
I agree to a large extent with the article’s opinion of global companies.
The suicide rate in Australia rivals the amount of deaths on the roads and a big percentage of these are by males in rural communities.
Global companies are hard to control even by Western governments. The labour government was almost bought down by their attempt to reign in the profits of the huge mining companies recently. They are virtually a law unto themselves.

The article also states<SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES THE RECOGNITION THAT DIVERSE SPECIES AND DIVERSE PEOPLE PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN THE MAINTAINING OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES.

That’s why I said in a recent article that races can be made genetically stronger by the intergration (intermarriage) of diverse ethnic groups rather than practising multiculturalism which is about wanting to stay in monocultural tribal groups. That’s not the meaning Mr. Shiva wants me to take from his words but is it? He is really defending the practice of being allowed to split into monocultural tribes under the system of multiculturalism.
Oh the deception and double speak of words.
Posted by CHERFUL, Sunday, 25 July 2010 12:13:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To POIROT

…….continued from above.

The article also states <The sustainability challenge for the new millenium is whether global economic man can move out of the worldview based on fear and scarcity, monocultural and monopolis, appropiation and dispossession and shift to a view based on abundance and sharing diversity and decentralisation and respect for all beings.>

Considering he was promoting the idea of diverse cultures, that is tribes maintaining their own monocultural identity in the previous paragraphs I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for mankind to change any time soon. I’m suspicious when he talks of sharing abundance because that sounds like the West should share all their abundance with India. I can’t see what abundance India is going to share with the West.
Maybe they should have thought more about abundance before they produced all those people over there and made their environment unsustainable. The key to abundance and lack of war is of course a sustainable world population. Do I hear any calls for massive contraception aid worldwide.

Reigning in some of the exploitative behaviour by global companies would also help. This would probably need to be done by all countries of the world taking a united stand against them, after all if they are threatened in one country they will just bribe their way into another country by making monetary offers that poor countries in particular may find hard to resist.
Posted by CHERFUL, Sunday, 25 July 2010 1:02:16 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
Poirot:>> My post was meant to be taken as it was written. I do not recall referring to your views.<<

My apologies if I misjudged the intent.
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 25 July 2010 1:41:25 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
Dear Poirot,
thanks for the link.

Dear Cherful,
apologies for my outburst, which was offensive and unhelpful.

I am not driven by PC. The whole point of my response to this thread was that there's a big civilising difference between humans in a state of nature and in a state of culture (Hobbes). When we form co-operative groups we have to elaborate codes of conduct to live by that make the whole thing work. The fact that we develop great ethics, often beautifully couched in inspirational texts as universals, but then observe them in strictly parochial fashion, acting viciously or indifferently to 'outsiders', suggests there are no universals and this is part of the modern crisis.
I choose to put my hope in humanity's transcendent ethical-intellect, that is that s/he can continue to cultivate meaning and values to live by and, eventually, respect all humans and all life; not just for the sake of high-sounding ethics, but also for what might redound to us in terms of the security we need and the potential we might achieve.
An unsustainable human presence now afflicts the whole world and we can either develop genuine (rather than tribal) universals or descend again into darkness. It does seem that we're headed for unprecedented misery http://www.google.com.au/search?q=causes+of+african+famine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a and it's a moot point whether the survivors will have a shred of ethical dignity left to rebuild a decent society, or just begin viciously again, ad nauseam. We live in 'one world' now, there are no convenient borders and no us and them, unless we go back to a state of nature, which is what you seem to advocate?
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 25 July 2010 2:30:09 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
No worries, Sonofgloin - it's a complex issue (arouses passions)

Cherful,

I don't believe Vandana Shiva was promoting the idea that the West should give its abundance to India.She was lamenting the loss of knowledge of bio-diversity and food production practices that go hand in hand with a globalized takeover of Indian food production.
She says, "Globalization of the food system is destroying the diversity of local food cultures and local food economies....These are not recipes for feeding the world, but stealing livelihoods from the poor to create markets for the powerful."
Citing the patenting of basmati rice - an ancient food source - Shiva continues: "...food is now being pirated and patented. The knowledge of the poor is being converted into the property of global corporations, creating a situation where the poor will have to pay for seeds and medicines they have evolved and have used to meet their own needs for nutrition and health care."

Cherful, Shiva is not asking for the West to hand over its wealth - she is merely asking it to stop plundering her country - asking it to stop being "selfish".
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 25 July 2010 7:27:24 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
Sorry about the dodgy link above. This was the one intended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 25 July 2010 8:04:05 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
Poirot,
In my work I am faced with consulting engineer designed infrastructure which, as expected, does never function properly. It is I & my colleagues who actually make designs work at wage level for which the engineers got paid very high rates. Yet, the same bureaucrats keep hiring the same consultants for the same high rates & pay them with taxpayers funding. Those of us who actually ensure value for money well, we're just exploited like the rice farmers in India.
I suppose you could call it selfish.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 25 July 2010 8:07:13 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
individual,

I appreciate your point.
I believe that the more bureaucratized or institutionalized something is, and removed from local, hands-on treatment - the more scope there is for entrenched large-scale selfishness (less likelihood of being guided by a social conscience). That's why smaller communities tend to work in a more co-operative manner.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 25 July 2010 8:35:59 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
That's why smaller communities tend to work in a more co-operative manner.
Poirot,
That is a fact which is not liked by Government hence they forced amalgamation onto well functioning communities rather then either help or discipline those which practised corruption.
Our local member who doesn't appear to have any qualification other than having worked all his life in his predeccessors' office mouthed off about some indigenous communities not being able to control their finances (hint-corruption) over the past 25 years. So, knowing all this was going on why didn't he address the problem within two or three years ? Were there an ounce of integrity this member should be prosecuted for being an accessory to the fact let alone be allowed to contest elections.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 25 July 2010 9:55:05 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
Putting it simply, we in the West plunder so called "underdeveloped countries". In the past we've colonized them, taking over their land and governance, and placed them in servitude. The modern equivalent is for us to lure and coerce their governing bodies to embrace our notion of "free trade".
We take from them while simultaneously disrupting their ancient systems of survival....and subsequently, when they are found wanting, we praise ourselves for our meagre generosity because we send them aid.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 25 July 2010 2:29:17 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
Old chinese proverb "what the eye sees the heart desires". Dangle a meaningless western commodity in front of anyone & they want it. I can't help thinking of those brilliant scientists who receive awards for inventing/discovering new ways & means for the world's population to grow ever so rapidly. Or more machinery to create even more unemployment. I'm pretty sure they would keep their discoveries well under wrapps if they were made to fork out as much we have to. What is it that makes so many people believe that we can ask for more & more growth ? I'd like to get extremely close to one of those "more economic growth" politicians whilst holding a baseball bat. I don't know if I could change their idiotic thinking but it certainly wouldn't do any harm to try & knock some sense into them.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 25 July 2010 3:45:06 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
A yet even more simplified version of Poirot’s post:

Once upon a time all the peoples of the third world lived in peace.
Their lives were bright and full of fun games and they wanted for nothing ---even child birth was a blissful delight.

Then one grey day the big bad white man came and took all their goods away.
And told them they could play no more unless they romped the white mans way --- now all they do is labor and fight.

(Now everyone from the left please join in the chorus) : Boo Hoo ,Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 25 July 2010 4:30:41 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
Peoples
Poirot, by and large I agree with the thrust of what you say, but would suggest you are still showing some western bias.

I would suggest WE (white/western) don't just 'interrupt' their survival systems we 'destroy' them. The real crime is that we strip the people of their identities/cultures (world view) reducing them to 'superstition' expelled dark fissures of their subconscious' or (tourist) entertainment. In their place we impose a cardboard cut out of our 'better'(sic)system history/culture of which they are either passively or actively excluded (i.e. how many Black African/PNG multinationals, hedge funds etc can you name?).

IMO WE are either actively or passively engaged in the equivalent of large Valium dosed ethnic *'cleansing'(?)* as in making white.

It is monumentally disingenuous to attempt to claim anything less.It is our selfishness that makes us permit our governments/corporations/ churches to exploit the lesser well off for their and OUR wants. (as opposed to our needs):

- Who worries about buying cheap stuff from discount stores ultimately from exploited third world countries etc? it's our sense of a bargain.

- or the cost of those excessive Corp profits we rely on for more stuff?

- or the cultural cost of another conversion to our myriad of superstitious religions/denominations? etc.

Me Preaching? not at all, just years of objective observation of our colonial piratical behaviour in PNG. Remember, Aust got into trouble from the UN over how we ran PNG. Selfish is the right word.

BTW. We as humans have a predilection when confronted by something we neither understand or want to deal with we 'label' it.

What then follows the labeling we become preoccupied discussing the label whether is valid or not, not the problem or more importantly the solution.
Is it racist....who cares? what it is is unacceptable so what are we going to do about it......probably nothing.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 25 July 2010 4:59:30 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
Then one grey day the big bad white man came and took all their goods away.
Horus,

Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, the various Raja's of India, the high priests of Central America, the Emperors of China & Japan, Egypt's Pharaohs etc. etc. wouldn't classify as big bad men ?
I only wish I could have lived in those days of milk & honey & just go walkabout with not a care in the world. My what a great life that must have been only being exploited by their own rather than the bad whites.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 25 July 2010 10:12:48 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
I just love the logic behind this.

>>'Then one grey day the big bad white man came and took all their goods away.'...Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, the various Raja's of India, the high priests of Central America, the Emperors of China & Japan, Egypt's Pharaohs etc. etc. wouldn't classify as big bad men ?<<

If I read this correctly, individual, and please enlighten me if I haven't, this justifies the tawdry history of European colonization on the basis that Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe etc. did it, so it was all right for us to do it too?

This is similar to that classic "they don't allow us to build churches in Saudi Arabia, so why should we let them build mosques here?"

As my white-haired old granny used to explain to me when I was a child, "I'm just doing what they do" is never an excuse for bad behaviour.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 26 July 2010 8:58:37 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
Why do some people have such low aspirations by seeking to be just like that which they despise.

"They are a prat, we can be just as good a prat as they..nah nah nah..."
Posted by pelican, Monday, 26 July 2010 9:35:33 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
AlGoreIsRich,

Of course, I totally agree. They don't live in a perfect community where everyone is fair and loving and kind to each other. THey are human after all. But many tribes do live in what can be described as a communist-style system.

But my point was that Communism is anything but a materialistic ideology (especially when compared to capitalism). These tribal communities live there way of life the way they do out of a combination of tradition and necessity.

My point was that the basis of communism ideology is sharing. It is not evil in itself. It is just not compatible with human nature. Humans want more for themselves and their families than just 'a fair share'. So, for it to work, it has to be enforced. In the case of the small tribal communities, their version of communism is enforced mainly by tradition and necessity. But in larger communities, it can only be enforced by taking away the rights of individuals. It is at this point communism turns 'bad'.

PS thanks for the welcome
Posted by TrashcanMan, Monday, 26 July 2010 11:01:48 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
TrashcanMan:>> In the case of the small tribal communities, their version of communism is enforced mainly by tradition and necessity. But in larger communities, it can only be enforced by taking away the rights of individuals. It is at this point communism turns 'bad'.<<

TCM, it is naive to connect by ethos the sharing society of the tribal group, and the thoughts of Karl Marx. One is a way to sustain a tribal society in harmony while living in relative desolation. The other is a political doctrine that has expansion as its penultimate goal, the ultimate goal being global domination, sort of like the Jihadists.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 26 July 2010 6:59:08 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
Pelican,
Two wrongs don't make a right, full stop ! The gist of my statement was to draw attention to the relentless accusing the white man. He's not Robinson Crusoe by a long shot in matters of exploitation & racism. He just happens to be the first to record his own misdeeds, something we have yet to see from the others.
Posted by individual, Monday, 26 July 2010 9:54:59 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
Individual,
<< He just happens to be the first to record his own misdeeds, something we have yet to see from the others>>

Well said, Individual.

In major parts of the world it’s absolutely NOT halal to suggest the locals have had a less than savoury past.
In our domain, on the other hand, everything is critically examined and it’s considered good sport to nit pick (some nonentities actually build careers on it!)

And that’s all well and good,as long as you don’t lose sight of the fact that we’re not “Robinson Crusoe”

It's all about balance – about separating fad from fact ---and taking responsibility for your own future and “MOVING FORWARD”

For all those who think otherwise, here’s a song just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym_mJokfTQg&feature=related
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 6:30:57 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
Apologies Pelican, I misread, my reply was for Pericles.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 7:31:46 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
sonofgloin,

i'm talking about the basic ideology of communism. It has nothing to do with global domination/expansion. (Nor does Jihadism btw). The ideology has just been mixed up in the past by the expansionist/aggressive politics of those who have advocated it.

I just want to say, I am not pro-communist. I just wanted to discuss how the self-preserving / self-advancing nature of humans (in this forum being simplistically described as selfishness) makes for an ideology like communism impossible.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 8:35:37 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
Not sure that this gets you off the hook, individual:

>>The gist of my statement was to draw attention to the relentless accusing the white man. He's not Robinson Crusoe by a long shot in matters of exploitation & racism. He just happens to be the first to record his own misdeeds, something we have yet to see from the others.<<

It was not my suggestion that "the white man", as you call him, was - or is - unique in his exploitation of his fellow man. And I fully accept that our ability to analyze our behaviour in the broader context of life on our planet in the twenty-first century sets us apart from those who cannot.

But this changes nothing.

Horus skewers the problem, perfectly.

>>It's all about balance – about separating fad from fact ---and taking responsibility for your own future and “MOVING FORWARD”<<

That's exactly the way to avoid addressing the issue.

"It's all in the past".

"Let's forget about it and 'move forward'"

"Hey, nothing to do with me, I wasn't even born at the time, right?"

But who was it who once threatened to:

"[visit] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation"

Some folk actually believe that it is their duty to hold grudges against people who, in their view, have treated them badly. And to take the opportunity to "visit iniquity" whenever they can.

This is not "black armband" stuff.

It is not about "apologizing".

Nor even about redress, as the past cannot be changed, even with money.

It is about recognizing that we have inflicted lasting damage, and now that circumstances have changed, we can expect a little push-back when we try to throw our weight around.

Sure, we could become "just like them". But it wouldn't do us any good, in either the short or the longer term.

Nor will continuing to be selfish.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 9:11:45 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
Pericles,
I can only agree with your last post. I, like many whities, am gradually losing my respect for those who despite being offered more assistance than anyone on this godforsaken lump of dirt, continue to rub in the wrongs (as perceived nowadays) of the past. I know of whole families whose forebears came from other lands & raped & pillaged but then have have very successfully integrated with the indigenous they exploited. Now, the descendants of those perpetrators are successfully claiming past victimisation by pulling the wool over the eyes of ignorant, open-mouthed, wide-eyed academic historians whose distorted views are being used to develop & implement policy for indigenous affairs.
That I believe is the crux of the problem of this never-ending futile to-ing & fro-ing.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:53:19 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
TrashcanMan:>> I just wanted to discuss how the self-preserving / self-advancing nature of humans (in this forum being simplistically described as selfishness) makes an ideology like communism impossible.<<

TCM, just to define your discussion, I think you mean socialism, there is a difference. One point to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. In any case your discussion scope is limited given you have identified the flaw in the doctrines, they have the hand of man all over them.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 2:42:00 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
individual: >> I, like many whities, am gradually losing my respect for those who despite being offered more assistance than anyone on this godforsaken lump of dirt, continue to rub in the wrongs (as perceived nowadays) of the past. <<

I feel no responsibility but I do believe positive discrimination is a must. The child mortality and life expectancy for our indigenous citizens is third world standard and that aptly examples the legitimacy of their cause in a first world country.

A few weeks back I was in Melb, and driving a hire car while trying to find a take away pizza joint. I flicked through the pre set radio stations and came across an indigenous station. I listened to the hosts outback English as he explained the meaning of the next song. The song rolled on and it was about the whites stealing their land. The host then said the usual things about the whites ruining their lives and announced the next song, it was about the stolen generation, at that point I found a pizza place. I returned to the car to while away the half hour wait and the host was hooking in again with a story about being arrested for no reason in a dusty town back of beyond, then he played the next track. A mournful ditty that encapsulated the loss of black identity in the white society.

I switched stations as the theme was apparent and as I said I did nothing negative to these people so why should I be burdened. There is no epilogue to this, I was just astounded to hear the rubbish being transmitted, and I may add the musicianship of most of the songs were "garage band" standard. Sadly our indigenous got the colour but they aint got the blues.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 3:33:51 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
An interesting judgment, sonofgloin.

>>I was just astounded to hear the rubbish being transmitted... Sadly our indigenous got the colour but they aint got the blues.<<

Would you perhaps have been less inclined to describe the songs as "rubbish", had they been performed by, say, a Ma Rainey or a Bessie Smith?

>>...the host was hooking in again with a story about being arrested for no reason in a dusty town back of beyond, then... A mournful ditty that encapsulated the loss of black identity in the white society.<<

What about Nina Simone, then? Would she have made their concerns more valid?

"Picket lines
School boycotts
They try to say its a communist plot
All I want is equality
For my sister my brother my people and me

Yes you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And youd stop calling me sister sadie

Oh but this whole country is full of lies
Youre all gonna die and die like flies
I dont trust you any more"

Mississippi Goddam (1963) nina simone

All sounds sadly familiar, does it not?

By the way, if you are genuinely interested in the way in which indigenous musicians express themselves, try listening to Archie Roach, and/or Ruby Hunter.

"One dark day on Framlingham
Come and didn't give a damn
My mother cried go get their dad
He came running, fighting mad
Mother's tears were falling down
Dad shaped up and stood his ground.
He said 'You touch my kids and you fight me'
And they took us from our family.
Took us away
They took us away
Snatched from our mother's breast
Said this was for the best
Took us away.

Told us what to do and say
Told us all the white man's ways
Then they split us up again
And gave us gifts to ease the pain
Sent us off to foster homes
As we grew up we felt alone
Cause we were acting white
Yet feeling black"

Took the Children Away (1992) Archie Roach
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 5:37:54 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 eight year-old son was looking through a book this morning when he exclaimed to me, "Mum, Martin Luther King went to jail". To which I responded from another room, "Yes, but he didn't do anything wrong". I then explained to him as best I could in a brief time the sorts of freedoms Martin Luther King had been fighting for - and although my son is young he understood the moral imperatives that were in play. His sense of moral justice has not yet been tainted...I hope it never is.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 6:49:07 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 recently watched the film, "Invictus,"
on DVD - starring Morgan Freeman as Nelson
Mandela. And I'm now reading the book,
"Mandela : The Authorised Portrait."

I can highly recommend it to anyone who
can use a bit of inspiration in their lives.

If all of us could live up to just one fraction of
the standards this man has set for himself, then
the world would be a far, far better place.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 7:55:00 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
Pericles says: >> It is about recognizing that we have inflicted lasting damage, and now that circumstances have changed, we can expect a little push-back when we try to throw our weight around<<

I’m more than happy to address the issue. But let’s not be half hearted about it –Let’s not artificially limit it the misdeeds of Europeans, only.
Let’s have a full, truth and reconciliation session.

Here’s a starting list:

i) The Turks for ravaging of central Europe [1289 --1923], and for their ethnic cleansing of Greeks & Armenians [late 20th Century]

ii) The Arabs for their ravaging the civilisations of S Asia & N Africa & Europe [624—1360], and for their part in running the biggest slave racket in history.

iii) The empires of South America ( Inca, Aztec etc) who conquered & enslaved dozens of other nation states/cities

iv) The Thais & Vietnamese for their usurping of Khmer & Mon territories .
v) The various African indigenous empires for conquering and exterminating of other tribes, and their complicity in the slave trade.
vi) The conquest of Hawaii under Kamehameha --and the resulting slaughter other his opposition tribes.
vii) The Maoris inter-tribal genocide [1800s]
viii) The India’s ongoing suppression of minorities & exploitation of their lands.
ix) Javanese colonialists for their transmigration program which dispossess the West Irianese , and a hundred other distinct non-Javanese peoples


At different times and places most groups –inflicted lasting damage –European colonialists were not the first nor the latest
So if it’s about those that have been damaged pushing back , I can see it developing into one hell of a mêlé
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 8:23:25 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
Pericles:>>
(sonofgloin)>> Sadly our indigenous got the colour but they aint got the blues.<<

Pericles:>> Would you perhaps have been less inclined to describe the songs as "rubbish", had they been performed by, say, a Ma Rainey or a Bessie Smith?<<

Pericles, probably so.
I note that you did not chide me over my statement that the conditions in which the indigenous citizens live is of third world standard, and that alone is enough to justify their anger and outrage, or that I believe positive discrimination towards these first Aussies was fitting and proper. No need to challenge me on these points as they are facts reinforced by current child mortality rates and average life span.

In a similar vein believe my appraisal of the musicianship of the indigenous bands exhibited in that hour or so of listening. There are of course individual talents from the indigenous Aussies such as Marlene Cummins or Archie Roach. Love Archie, but as a group do the locals have the apparent talent of the American negro, no way, and what is wrong with saying so?

My positive discrimination does not extend to gilding the lilly in regard to attributes that are not there, even the Islanders are more musically inclined than our first Aussies. It's not their fault, it's not my fault, it is just how it is.

Pericles don't read more into the observation than the face value, no hidden agenda of discredit or demeaning, just my sledge hammer outlook. What is, is.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 8:56:07 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
Horus all of what you said is valid, everybody has a beef, you just have to look back far enough. My point is that we should focus and fix what is happening now rather than cry over the past. Why is the "stolen generation" a current and ongoing topic and not indigenous child mortality? Why are pages filled with passion in forums in regard to indigenous rights, but we accept that indigenous Aussies die younger regularly. In fact indigenous Aussies born in the period 1996-2001 are estimated to have a life expectancy at birth of 59 years for males, and 64 years for females. The poor guy does not even hit retirement age, but who cares as long as we can discuss their forebear’s tribulations infinitum. Crocodile tears for the dream time.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 9:17:13 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
sonofgloin,
You make some good points, and sound sincere to me.

Don’t be intimated because some old Greek doesn’t share your musical tastes. On my part I prefer Michael Jackson (that will probably get up his nose too!)

Cheers
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 9:59:03 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. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

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