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 > The Cost Of Colonisation

The Cost Of Colonisation

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All
In a landmark decision the High Court of Australia has ordered the Northern Territory Government to pay $2.53 million compensation to a small group of native title holders the Ngaliwurru and Nungali people from Timber Creek. The payment is in recognition of 53 government actions between 1980 and 1996 which included such things as construction of public works, which took place on native title land. The payment is in recognition of both economic and cultural loss suffered by a group of indigenous people.
In itself the ruling is not of a great significance, but what it does show is the High Court now quantifies in monetary terms the value of the loss both economically and culturally, including the spiritual connection value of Aboriginal people to their country. This ruling now sets the ground rules for future monetary claims by indigenous people for economic and cultural loss they have suffered because of European colonisation of their land.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/13/northern-territory-ordered-to-pay-253m-to-native-title-holders-in-legal-first
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:39:29 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
Poppycop!

A lousy $2.5 million is the "cost of colonisation"? If a law was broken, then the lawbeaker has to pay. But that's got *%!! to do with colonisation, which has benefited the original inhabitants pricelessly, and if there had been no colonisation, the poster of this bats..t crazy comment wouldn't be here like the rest of us, aboriginal and others, enjoying the benifits of this country.

A visitor to Botswana, impressed by the life and healthy economy of that country, asked an educated national of a neighbouring, dirt-poor country why his country wasn't as successful as Botswana.

"Because we didn't have the benefit of colonisation" was the answer.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 15 March 2019 9:24:15 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 benefits of colonisation far outweigh the cost. Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation. Rewriting history helps no one.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 March 2019 10:38:03 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
While we are involved with the anti-white-Australia attitude of the Greens, ex Victorian Upper House PM, Samantha Dunn, has seen the light, giving the party the flick because it is “too toxic”.

Other observations on the Greens included by Dunn were:

“ Appealing to narrowcast demographics
Virtue signalling
Divide and conquer
Distracted by populism
Power
Self-interest
Ego
Narcissism
Megalomania”.

Samantha Dunn sounds like one of the escapees from dangerous cults.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 15 March 2019 10:49:09 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
ttbn, the decision only covered 127 hectares of land. In the $2.53 million only $1.2 million or 50% of the lands value was for economic loss. However $1.3 million was for cultural loss, which is far more significant, given native title covers 2.8m sq km of land holdings across Australia, compensation payment for which a precedent by the High Court has now been set, could become the norm, governments, mining companies and pastoralists etc might find they have to pay billions in compensation to indigenous title holders for cultural loss.

I liked you little irrelevant story about the blokes in Botswana. same goes for the woman from Victoria, nothing to do with the discussion, unless of course you have nothing to say.

//Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation. Rewriting history helps no one//. runner you are making up history helps no one either. There is more evidence that Jesus Christ was homosexual, than what you just posted, so do you accept Christ was a homosexual?
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 15 March 2019 11:31:42 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
so do you accept Christ was a homosexual?
Paul1405,
just as much as I accept you to be one too !
Posted by individual, Friday, 15 March 2019 11:58:14 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
If the recipients were to be treated equally then the bulk of the reward would be gobbled up by Tax anyway.
However, as these sort of decisions never involve anything resembling equality based on integrity it will be the next bandwagon for Lawyers.
Posted by individual, Friday, 15 March 2019 12:04:29 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
Hmmm, public works, "construction of public works, which took place on native title land".

There is always a smart lawyer, dumb judge & grasping aboriginals to watch out for.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 15 March 2019 12:32:21 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
Well the solution seems simple...governments should never again build ANYTHING on aboriginal owned land. No public housing, no roads, no infrastructure whatsoever.

After all we mustn't interfere with " the spiritual connection value of Aboriginal people to their country."

Of course, the 'Closing the Gap' boondoggle might suffer somewhat but...spiritual connection trumps all, dontcha know.

And then we can look forward to lawsuits in a few years claiming discrimination because the government wasn't interfering with "the spiritual connection value of Aboriginal people to their country."

And the Paul's of the world will be telling us its all because of colonialism...or something. Nothing at all to do with some aboriginal's cargo cult mentality, nosiree!
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 15 March 2019 1:03:58 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
So ..... groups can be paid for roads, water pipelines, sewage ponds, any government-funded buildings, schools, etc. on their land ? What next, that they can be paid compensation for houses - their own houses - being put on their land ? And for any government services for their benefit ? Sounds like double-dipping - no wait, since it will be tax-free, it could be a form of triple-dipping :)

Money, not poverty, seems to be why people neglected their kids in the twenty years after the War (the worst decades for infant mortality, at least down here in SA) when there was plenty of work on long-delayed infrastructure projects for many Aboriginal people, and therefore money, and therefore grog, and therefore a 'Stolen Generation' ?

So will this new bonanza enable far more money (tax-free) to be spent on such 'discretionary expenditure' and therefore boost the number of SG kids ? Will it contribute to a rise in child suicides, and ultimately to a diminution of the population in remote areas ? Unintentionally, could it be yet another contribution to a spiralling form of genocide ?

It's probably quite legal, but it could have a devastating impact on families, and on child abuse and mortality. I can't see 'communities' benefiting from this in the long run in that case. BUT it's probably legal. God help remote Aboriginal people from good intentions, as Marx would observe.

Plus, as a side-note, the NT government (and sooner or later, all State governments) will suddenly find themselves in huge debt. Interesting times.

Joe
firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 March 2019 2:34:40 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
'so do you accept Christ was a homosexual?
Paul1405,'

sort of diarrhea I expect from you Paul. You are pretty predictable.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 March 2019 4:30:30 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
"Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation."

Look how they still treat girls.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:16:05 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
"Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation."
is Mise,
Yep, their idea of compassion for the sick was to leave them to die ! When you look at the general plots in indigenous legends it invariably involves some form of violence.
Fine by me if that's their culture but stop blaming ALL their woes on settler invasion.
Most of the whiners only exist because of the invaders !
Posted by individual, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:24:04 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
Indy, runner, Issy, You three are porky tellers!

Where is your evidence; "Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation." I say you are making it all up, if you can supply the slightest bit of pre-colonial evidence to this claim, I'll say sorry for calling you three porky tellers.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:39:31 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
when did evidence ever change your mind Paul. I am sure you are capable of a little research but you are bound to reject anything that does not fit your lying narrative.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:53:47 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
if you can supply the slightest bit of pre-colonial evidence to this claim,
Paul1405,
when you spend extended periods in remote communities you hear ancient stories & also many legends etc have been recorded from such verbal history of which the indigenous take great pride & place great importance on. In fact, many academic interpretations of accounts have been queried by indigenous story tellers over the years.
One of the most effective ways of telling stories is in indigenous dancing. Not the pale skinned choreographed dancing in Latte Brigade Art centres but the real Blackfellow corrobories in the Bush.
Posted by individual, Friday, 15 March 2019 6:26:26 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
Paul have a read here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/culture-of-denial/news-story/3dd28525dc85e34c1fb549813bd4d9f4

I worked next to an aboriginal camp community in Alice Springs in 1960 building a home and school for aboriginal children so they would not be removed from contact with their parents. There were fights every night by men fighting over who had sex with young girls. The half caste families in town would have nothing to do with the camp aboriginals
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 15 March 2019 7:18:16 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 Paul,

This may be of interest. It's taken from
Age. 15.1/1957.

"The Minister for Native Welfare (Mr Brady) today
denied that natives in the Laverton-Warburton
Ranges were starving."

"They may be suffering from malnutrition, but
they are definitely not starving."

"He said that atomic tests had interferred with
native welfare, but it could not be said the Federal
Government was solely responsible for the present situation."
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 March 2019 7:25:45 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
cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Here's more:

Explorer Michael Terry, giving details of 1932 central
Australian mining survey:

"I carried a length of dog chain, not for dingo -control,
but for Aboriginal-control, in case we became desperate for
water. The chain was to hold fast a tribesman who could
lead us to fresh water after we had fed him salt beef to
make him thirsty."

"Military Operations. Van Diemen's Land. 1831. Printed
by order of the House of Commons, 23 September 1831.

The Committee allude to those attacks which, it has
come to their knowledge, were then frequently made
by lawless and desperate characters for the purpose of
carrying off the native women and children; attempts which,
if resisted, the aggressors did not scruple to accomplish
with circumstances of dreadful and unnecessary barbarity.
A person named Carrots, since dead, is known to have
killed a native in his attempt to carry off his wife.
He cut off the dead man's head, and obliged the
woman to go with him, carrying it suspended round her neck.

There's plenty more but this will do for now.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 March 2019 7:51:24 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
Paul,

At the Alice Springs Hospital, Aboriginal women are something like thirty times more likely to be admitted for violent attacks by their beloveds than white women.

In all hunter-gatherer societies, such as ours (yours and mine) were barely a hundred years ago in part, and a thousand years ago in toto, violence is pretty much the only way to resolve issues - there are no jails, no system of fines, no community work procedures.

In every community I've ever known, violence was pretty common: one young bloke, I recall, had his head bashed in; his murderers were never charged (they shot through for a couple of years), although we all knew who they were. Women would often be beaten, sometimes (to our surprise and enjoyment) stripped first, or at least their tops, after which they would go around the house smashing all the windows and screaming with rage. Rape of young girls occurred; there seemed to be suicides almost every year - in 'communities' of barely a hundred people.

We have to recognise the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Otherwise there can never be any moving forward.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 March 2019 8:02:05 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
Joe, I take what you say as being the truth, but none of that is relevant to the claim made that colonialism brought "benefits" to indigenous people. Just the opposite, from what you and Foxy and even Josephus have posted colonialism seems to have had a detrimental effect. That would be true given a conquered people are rarely shown much sympathy by the conquers.
The other claim; "Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation." The three making this claim cannot provide any supportive evidence what so ever. It is simply a figment of their imagination
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 15 March 2019 10:00:49 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
If it wasn't the English it would have been the French, Spanish, Dutch or any other country and the exact same atrocities would have happened.

Also what about the 2 yo child that was raped last year, do you think that is only a modern thing and never happened before white man came here, to what extent it would be happening without white man laws is anyone's guess.

Quote "The three making this claim cannot provide any supportive evidence what so ever. It is simply a figment of their imagination"

** Just because they have no evidence to support the claim does not make that claim false. **
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 15 March 2019 10:53:48 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
Excerpt from a book, to balance Foxy's one-sided argument.

From our early mariners’ point of view there need be no ‘sense of guilt’ for alleged atrocities against the Aboriginal race. Indeed, the number of innocent, unarmed shipwreck survivors, including women and children, brutally murdered by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders well before any attempted white settlement of North Queensland in particular, leads to an entirely different conclusion. By their initial actions the natives were mostly seen at the time as barbarous cannibals, who could not be trusted, and their actions naturally brought the risk of some retaliation upon themselves later. Continuing atrocities made this inevitable.
Posted by individual, Friday, 15 March 2019 11:44:01 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
//If it wasn't the English it would have been the French, Spanish, Dutch or any other country and the exact same atrocities would have happened.//
Phil has does that negate the culpability of the British colonials? A ridiculous line of argument.

//Just because they have no evidence to support the claim does not make that claim false//

Yes but since we are dealing in truth, and there is no evidence of truth provided here this claim is nonsense.

Here we have Indy throwing in his usual nonsense.

//there need be no ‘sense of guilt’ for alleged atrocities against the Aboriginal race//

Why is that? because the simple peaceful white folks, minding their own business, were set upon by the evil black cannibals. As much as they didn't want to do it the simple peaceful white folks naturally had to extract retribution on the evil black cannibals in the name of justice all their own fault serves them right! If darkie had simply rolled over and played dead then he would have been okay.

Proved it again Indy, when it comes to nonsense you are a master.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 March 2019 6:07:14 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
If these self-haters and cry-babies-over-colonisation were sincere, they would pack up and go back to wherever their ancestors came from, and leave the rest of us in peace.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 16 March 2019 8:11:06 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
Proved it again Indy, when it comes to nonsense you are a master.
Paul1405,
And, when it comes to being sick, hypocritical & plainly lacking integrity you hold the perpetual trophy.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 16 March 2019 8:28:37 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
"if you can supply the slightest bit of pre-colonial evidence to this claim"

In 1875, "just before the establishment of the earliest stations on the Finke River… the waiting warriors could be reasonably certain that all members of the Irbmangkara camp had returned. As soon as the clearing around the camp had been reached, they rushed in, like swift dingoes upon a flock of unsuspecting emus. Spears and boomerangs flew with deadly aim. Within a matter of minutes Ltjabakuka and his men were lying lifeless in their blood at their brush shelters. Then the warriors turned their murderous attention to the women and older children, and either speared or clubbed them to death. Finally, according to the grim custom of warriors and avengers, they broke the limbs of the infants, leaving them to die “natural deaths”. The final number of the dead could well have reached the high figure of from eighty to a hundred men, women, and children. Before leaving the stricken camp, the bodies of all clubbed victims were prodded with spears to make certain that there was no life left in them. For the warriors had to be sure beyond all doubt that no eyewitnesses had survived who could later on incite reprisals against them.”
It’s a long but fascinating story of murder and revenge…. http://tghstrehlow.wordpress.com/1922/10/11/wednesday-the-eleventh-day-of-october-1922/

Paleopathologist Webb’s 1995 analysis of 4500 individuals’ bones from mainland Australia covering 50,000 years. found very high rates of injuries and fractures to women’s skulls. Female head-injury frequency was about 30%, versus 12% for males. Domestic violence was the likely cause. In Adelaide female cranial trauma in skeletons was 4 times greater than for men at up to 44%. Multiple injuries were common. This level of injury and/or disparity isn’t found in other Stone Age ‘civilisations’.

First Fleeter Tench ..“They are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality.”

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 16 March 2019 8:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

Blue Mountain explorer… “[Aboriginal husband] took his club and struck his wife’s head such a blow that she fell to the ground unconscious. After dinner…he got infuriated and again struck his wife on the head with his club, and left her on the ground nearly dying.”

French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville remarked how often young girls are “violently dragged to isolated spots and are ravished after being subjected to a good deal of cruelty.”
Tasmanian men sold their women (possessions) to sealers for food and dogs. Many such women refused to leave when it was time to return to the tender mercies of the tribe. Arnhem women were sold to Chinese merchants as concubines who were apparently much prized in Peking.
Explorer Eyre, who was sympathetic to the natives, wrote…“Few women will be found, upon examination, to be free from frightful scars upon the head, or the marks of spear wounds about the body. I have seen a young woman, who, from the number of these marks, appeared to have been almost riddled with spear wounds."

And so on and so on. Dozens of accounts from the period. Ample archaeological evidence.
But somehow I suspect we’ll be getting obfuscation from Paul rather than the promised apology.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 16 March 2019 8:53:58 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
Dear Paul,

Here's some more "one-sided" examples:

"How ugly can we get! by Jack Waterford."
(Herald. 5.9.1977).

"If the government declared an open season on the
c**ns tomorrow, I would be first in line for my
hunter's licence." - a truckdriver in the whites-only
bar of the hotel at Wiluna, Western Australia.

"I don't care what the government does with my taxes just
as long as not one cent of it goes to the...ni**ers" -
a miner standing beside him and speaking as intensely.

Other whites around the bar gave every sign of agreement.
Aborigines as referred to in Wiluna as "c**ns,"
"ni**ers" and "mongrels"by the whites, and total hate is
the order of the day.

At the hotel, there is a much smaller bar, a considerably
more dingy one, in which Aborigines can buy beer. Not
wine and spirits, however, for these the hotel keeper
has decreed are not available for sale to blacks.

This bar closes at 7.30 each night; if blacks want to buy
beer after that they must knock on the door of the white
bar, wait outside while the barman comes outside, and
plead with him.

Fifty whites live in and around Wiluna and perhaps 250
blacks. Of the latter, about half live in a village
10 kilometres from town which was once a Seventh Day
Adventist mission.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 March 2019 9:58:53 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
Dear Paul,

Taken from "The changing Australians: A social
History" by Sue Fabian -

We're told under the heading of - "We know what's best
for you!"

That although it was hoped that Aborigines would fit in with
Europeans, they were regarded as inferior and their wages
were very low. Some argued that the natives were lazy
and unreliable, and so the "fixed minimum wage"for
Aborigines was only two-thirds of the wage paid to
Europeans. The family of the employed Aborigine was
supposed to work for the white boss without wages, in return
for their board.

The money paid to Aborigines was (and still is, in some areas)
paid into their bankbooks which the boss kept. If the
employee wanted to get money to spend he or she had to ask
the boss for approval. Often this meant that they never received any money of their own, only a written permission to buy those
things the boss approved.

Although there have always been individual whites who cared for the Aborigines, even amongst those with the best intentions, there
have been many sad mistakes made in the treatment of
Aborigines.

For example in the 1920s , Daisy Bates went to live with the
Aboriginal peop-le and with the love and understanding she
gave, tried to bridge the gap between blacks and whites.
But even with her good intentions, it was always a pitying
sort of approach that she offered to the "poor dying race"
of Aborigines.

Some protectors were dishonest, and it has been claimed that
they stole from the Aboriginal workers whose interests they were
supposed to protect. Some people even go so far as to claim that
in some parts of Australia, Aboriginal workers were paid not
in money but in methylated spirits, which they drank.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:17:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

In the 1960s, Aborigines demanded fairer laws and they
gained some benefits. Aborigines were finally allowed to join
trade unions and were given freedom to remain on reserves
or leave. They were given more freedom from their bosses
(their families no longer had to work for the white bosses
for nothing). Then, in 1967, a referendum (national voting)
was held, and the whites of Australia decided to give the
blacks what had long been the natural right of any white
Australian citizen, the right to vote.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:24:16 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
In the 1950's I was listening to a missionary from the Gulf country, who was helping the aboriginals to establish a cattle station. There were about 150 blacks living on the property. One young black man married a black bride but he said to the missionary she was lazy; initially the missionary had taught them not to be violent to their wives. But he pleaded to the missionary to allow him to beat his wife, after several weeks of pleading the missionary gave him permission to use his belt only. It worked! Violence against women in aboriginal communities was endemic before colonisation.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:34:39 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
Josephus,

You mean that Aboriginal men also beat their
wives prior to colonisation?

Gee whiz, then they should have fitted right into
the white society - ay? Why didn't they?
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:40:01 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
Paul,

Can you try to understand that ALL. hunter-gatherer societies used appalling amounts of violence - there was nothing uniquely Australian-aboriginal about it. Check out old Scottish stories, about the feuds and vendettas and pay-back, and brutal treatment of any women suspected stepping out of line.

If we go back, say, fifteen thousand years, ALL human groups or clans - perhaps half a million of them - were living in those sort of conditions. Technology was by definition, incredibly primitive: hunting on foot with spears and clubs, against wary animals, couldn't have been easy. Fishing by spear and raft, only for the fish that one could see at the best of times, must have left the vast majority of fish believing in eternal life. Gathering pissy grass-seed all day, lugging it around along with babies and other tools, then spending hours grinding it, then baking damper from it, mustn't have been much fun, for sixty thousand years. Then facing a husband jealous of a woman suspected of meeting some bloke up behind a tree, and belting her just in case. Great life.

Early reports here in SA, of the Protector and of missionaries, repeatedly deal with men beating their wives, often to death, and how the law now was firm against such pastimes - even though in most cases, the perpetrator got off with a light sentence, since it was a sort of customary thing for Blackfellows to do. In one missionary's journal, one bloke stood out for having very likely beaten his young wife to death, and smashing another 'beloved' with a fence paling (and admittedly for many other less serious offences).

A far higher proportion of Indigenous people (men and women) are in custody for violent crimes than other Australians. That merely continues a common trend going back to the earliest days. Even William Buckley, in his memoirs of his 35 years living amongst people around the Geelong area before settlement/invasion, recounts may times of fights between groups and of women being beaten. Check it out on Book Depository.

To get back to the original topic:

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:42:57 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
[continued]

To get back to the original topic: (1). was invasion/settlement inevitable ? Like it or not, I think the answer is yes. If not the French (we beat them by two weeks), the Spanish (four years), the Americans (recall that they were rumoured to be menacing New Zealand before 1840), and god knows who else during the nineteenth century; then the twentieth; now the twenty-first - do you think Indonesia or India or China or Russia would leave Australia alone now, if everybody else had done so before them ?

(2). On balance, was settlement/invasion detrimental or beneficial, or both ? I think it certainly was both, but even in the eyes of Aboriginal people themselves, probably more beneficial than otherwise.

Perhaps one tragedy for many Aboriginal people in current remote areas was that their incorporation into Australia was far too late, when the economy had moved on from any need for unskilled physical labour, and onto needs for professional skills when schooling for Aboriginal kids seems to have actually deteriorated to the point where, in many 'communities', they can't read and write - and are not inclined even for unskilled, physical work even if it was available. They're stuffed unless they can get the hell out.

The anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner remarked once that he had never known of any Aboriginal people to give up the ration/welfare system and return to traditional foraging - one could add, without some extraneous reason such as expulsion from the group for some infringement, mostly likely involving some breach of marriage rules.

Aboriginal groups now control a sizeable chunk of Australia, in all sorts of environments from lush to barren: so are people foregoing their welfare payments now, to return to traditional life, when it would be perfectly possible ? No.

So, why's that, Paul ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:54:08 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
methylated spirits, which they drank.
Foxy,
add to that Aftershave lotion & tuba.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 16 March 2019 11:04:10 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
Loudmouth,

"Can you try to understand that ALL. hunter-gatherer societies used appalling amounts of violence - there was nothing uniquely Australian-aboriginal about it. "

There's no doubt that Stone Age life was short and brutal. Survival was precarious. Death by famine was one bad season away. Death by disease common. Death at the hands of rivals even more common.

While my education on these issues is far from extensive, my understanding is that the incidence of fracture bones, particularly skulls, in skeletons from pre-historic aboriginal women significantly exceeds that found in all other studied Stone Age groups.

I don't know that anyone's offered a reasonable explanation for this and I'd guess that even acknowledging it as a sphere of study would be career-ending for any budding anthropologist.

Whatever the cause, it would seem that this cultural habit has survived contact with civilisation... "Indigenous women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of domestic violence than their non-Indigenous counterparts. "
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 16 March 2019 1:23:06 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
Hi MHaze,

34 times, across the entire Indigenous population - but in the cities, it's probably not much higher than across the non-indigenous population. So in the rural, and even more so in remote, areas, the rate of violence against women is far higher than 34 times. I look forward to the day when my feminist compatriots pay attention to that statistic.

Is colonisation or colonialism to blame ? Let's see - the populations who have experienced the most from colonisation seem to be the least affected in those appalling statistics. The populations which have experienced the LEAST amount of colonisation seem to be the MOST prone to violence against women. Hmmm ...... what's wrong with that 'explanation' ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 16 March 2019 2:06:24 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
Dear Paul,

This may be of interest:

http://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 March 2019 2:44:20 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
Foxy,
here's another one.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/mar/27/guardianletters5
Posted by individual, Saturday, 16 March 2019 7:53:28 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
One way of learning about life before white settlement was to talk to aboriginal people who remembered the coming of white man, and how their lives changed. Of course this has not been possible in the eastern and southern parts of Australia for many years but in the Kimberley, many missions and settlements occurred after 1900, so, when I arrived in the Kimberley in 1970, there were still people alive who had childhood memories of traditional life score white man.
Even better for me, my aboriginal father in law was raised in a very remote mission in the far north west Kimberley, where the first whites arrived in 1912. His aboriginal father was the skipper of the Lugger that carried supplies from Broome up to the mission.
These missionaries did not believe in interfering with traditional culture, they just wanted to bring religion and hopefully educate the people.
My father in law told me some horrific stories of the brutal way women, babies and old people were treated
No one could ever say aboriginal people didn’t benefit from colonisation.
Posted by Big Nana, Saturday, 16 March 2019 8:43:37 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
Big Nana,
I have similar experiences. I spend many hours talking to old people about the stories they were told about the very early days.
Many years later when I retold some I was accused of talking BS by you guessed it, young teachers & academics. Some of the young locals they managed to convince of my "BS" later apologised when I asked them if they thought their old people no longer alive were liars.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 16 March 2019 9:30:58 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
thanks Nana

I have actually spent many hours talking to elders and old missionaries who were among the first whites some aboriginals had contact with. Unfortunately the older elders are dying out. For practical purposes some disabled babies were clubbed. Things were far from idealistic. Probably the introduction of grog was the worst thing white man did. Some missionaries really opposed this however were overruled by secular Government. The plight of the bush aboriginals have gone backwards at the rate if knots since the Government took over the old missions.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 16 March 2019 10:04:00 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
I know a PNG family that was taught in german Lutheran missions & the parents who are no longer alive expressed their appreciation of the times before PNG was taken off the Germans.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 17 March 2019 12:28:34 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
Runner, it wasn’t just disabled babies. Baby girls were frequently killed, one of twins was always killed and if the mother was still breast feeding a toddler, then the new baby was killed because no woman could successfully carry and feed two babies at once. This is why pre settlement families were small. Some women had no children at all, others only a couple. It was an economic decision.
If you study all the old photos you will notice that despite plenty of men and women, only a few children were with each group.
With wives, it was also economics because if a man lost his wives he had no one to gather food for him and hunting is not a reliable source of food. So run away wives had their ankles broken so they were crippled and couldn’t run and disrespecting wives were battered over the head with a nulla nulla.
Dave Price, the husband of NTs, Bess Price sent me a few paragraphs of Bess’s local language, along with translation and it was all about the violent ways in which a cheeky or unfaithful wife was to be dealt with.
Posted by Big Nana, Sunday, 17 March 2019 12:32:15 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
Big Nana,
Early indigenous life was governed by common sense instead of misguided emotion, hence the 40 thousand + years existence of these people.
The West will be lucky to make it another 10-20 years judging by the idiocy of our intellectual leaders & the rest of the academic social expert pedestal brigade.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 17 March 2019 8:04:58 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
From the WA Moseley Royal Commission into the Aborigines, 1935: part of the testimony of Mrs Mary Bennett - by no means a right-winger:

" 591. The desert tribes of Western Australia are known above the others for having worked out the most complete rules for maintaining the supremacy of the patriarchal oligarchy by compelling the women and young people to accept the property status, which is just slavery, property in human flesh. The old men polygamists assign the female children at birth amongst themselves, and every female child, be she full-blood aboriginal or she be half-white, is the property of some old polygamist.

"One result in the settled district that I know is that there are at least fifty young men unmarried, and with no prospect of marrying for many years, and then they will have to marry girls who are hardly more than children, whereas if polygamy were stopped in the settled district, they could have young women for their wives now. The squatters pretend that the old men would make trouble if polygamy was stopped, and perhaps kill some of the young men. The truth is that the death rate would actually be less than it is now through polygamy and adultery."

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 March 2019 8:13:07 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
[continued]

Polygamy is the cause of nearly every fight among natives. A man takes another wife ; sooner or later the first wife has reason to be jealous of the new wife, and a fight ensues between them.
Old Wodja of the Koolahr tribe at Forrest River brought me his new wife one morning after a terrible beating from his first wife, and I spent days nursing her back to life after the most terrible shock and battering. A great number of examples of suffering and injuries can be given. If a husband takes part in the fight, he sides with the new wife and the first wife gets an unmerciful beating. It is not usual for her relatives to interfere, for she is his property to do what he likes with, but sometimes family affection is too strong and there is a spear fight between the men. If one should chance to be killed, it starts a vendetta which is endless.

A young man may run away with one of the wives of an old man, or with one of the girls whom the old man has bespoken. The young people are tracked at once, if possible, and punished. One man I know, Gympie’s husband, Paddy, was punished by having an eye put out. An unfaithful wife may be put to death, and her husband is held to be justified in killing her, though he may have five other wives, and may have neglected or deserted her, or even sold her to white men.

Mary Ann, killed at Laverton, had been sold to white men many times by her husband, Moonggie, but when she failed to return at his command, his brother Bung-arra in his absence, rightfully according to native law, speared her to death. The brother was imprisoned for seven years, but nothing was done to improve the position of native women or give them the protection of our laws.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 March 2019 8:15:31 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
[continued]

"A curious thing is that though an old native man will sell any or all of his wives to white men again and again, he will never at any price agree to release one of them to marry another native man who loves her and whom she loves ; and if the other native man should seek such a solution unaided or unprotected by a white man, the old native will stir up the other the members of the tribe to take his life. But a native tracker can take whom he will, and the executive represented by his policeman master is presumably behind him."

Mrs Bennett died in 1961 and the Communist newspaper 'Tribune" printed a eulogy for her.
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 March 2019 8:17:31 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
Paul confidently asserted that there was no evidence of pre-colonial abuse of aboriginal women and children by aboriginal men. Its a fairly standard assertion from those who buy the noble savage trope.

Paul promised to apologise to others if he was provided with the slightest evidence that such abuse occurred.

Funnily, now that LM, Big Nana and I have provided plenty of such evidence, rather than the promised apology from Paul, the only thing we hear is the patter of little feet running in the other direction.

Not that we'd expect more or better from Paul et al, but it is a symptom of the problems we have these days in regards to understanding the past and how we got here from there.

There is no longer a desire to understand the past for itself. History is only valued if it can be used as a cudgel to advance today's policies. If the history of this or that is 'unhelpful' it is either abused or ignored.

And that's how civilisations depart.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 17 March 2019 9:15:44 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 is no longer a desire to understand the past for itself. History is only valued if it can be used as a cudgel to advance today's policies. If the history of this or that is 'unhelpful' it is either abused or ignored. '

so true mhaze
Posted by runner, Sunday, 17 March 2019 9:50:34 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
“A degree in Australian history is like three years in a re-education camp, where any natural interest which might have existed at the beginning will well and truly extinguished by the end. Identity politics renders Australia's history …. mind-numbingly dull. …. students …. sit through class after class ….. being indoctrinated by political activists masquerading as historians …. every subject (uses) the same tedious predictable template ….. students are leaving the humanities in droves”. (CIS).

The last few words are encouraging.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 17 March 2019 10:37:45 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
big Nana,
You must have hit the nail on the head. No Leftie opinions other than Foxy Links for 25 posts !
Posted by individual, Sunday, 17 March 2019 10:55:10 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
If you only have a hammer - you tend to see
every problem as a nail.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 March 2019 12:30:15 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
Foxy,
Integrity & good will aren't nails just because you et al have a problem in that field !
Posted by individual, Monday, 18 March 2019 7:00:27 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
mhaze, show me the pre 1788 evidence.

"Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation"

I'll look at it when someone provides the evidence. 1935 or 1960 or even 1870 are not before colonisation. One of the big problems for Aboriginal people was the introduction by the European of alcohol into their lives, with generally disastrous effects. Maybe they were a better people in pre colonial days, before the days of alcohol.

I'm not saying the above claim is not possible, it is, all I asked for was the evidence to substantiate the claim. It has not been provided, and never will be
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 March 2019 7:39:28 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
Paul,

If you won't admit evidence, even from the earliest days, because "it's not before 1788", then how would you propose that anybody could analyse data before 1788 ?

William Buckley lived with groups around what is now Geelong for thirty-odd years, BEFORE invasion/settlement. Early missionaries all around Australia reported stories from old people of extreme violence. Tell it like it is, Paul.

Peter Sutton has analysed a great many archaeological remains of Aboriginal people who died long before 1788: amongst female remains, he found evidence of head-crush injuries, usually on the left side of their skulls, and other evidence of violence on their forearm bones. Would that count ?

Those remains would be available for anyone hoping to prove that the wounds were self-inflicted, or random accidents, but I don't expect that anyone would take up that task. Easier to prattle about colonisation - you know, that dreadful force which impacted on southern Indigenous people, urban people, far more than on remote populations, and for far longer.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 March 2019 9:43:27 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
Paul 1405, did you not read my account of stories from my father in law, raised in a remote traditional community where alcohol did not exist and people lived their traditional lives? Or hear about the life story of William Buckley, who spent 30 years living in the bush with a tribe who had no contact with white people, apart from himself?
However, seeing as those types of stories are not enough for you, I suggest you get hold of a book written by Stephen Webb, who was a paleopathologist who examined thousands of aboriginal bones in order to gain some uunderstanding of life before settlement.
One of the thing he found was concrete evidence of violence towards women. Up to 30% of women had at least one skull fracture, some up to three. The majority of the blows came from from the side or behind the head.
Different areas of Australia had different results. Some areas it was only 3%, others much higher.
Considering how rare it is for any woman today, apart from aboriginal women, to have even one skull fra tire, I think that’s an extremely telling finding.
Posted by Big Nana, Monday, 18 March 2019 9:43:41 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 1606 reports by the Dutch. As with most such reports the modern academic versions are heavily focussed on finding fault with the explores wherever possible, justified or not !
Posted by individual, Monday, 18 March 2019 9:54:56 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
Le's be honest: for good and/or ill, colonisation was inevitable. Some imperialist power would have invaded/settled Australia sooner or later, as they have done in practically every corner of the world over the past four thousand years or so. Nothing new about it.

And using it as an 'explanation' really doesn't get anybody anywhere: what then ? That everybody else packs up and goes back to wherever their ancestors came from ? Hardly likely. And how much does it 'explain' ? Perhaps it might explain the current sixty thousand Indigenous university graduates ? What would they be doing now if, somehow, people were still living un-trammelled traditional lives ?

Perhaps it might 'explain' - in a negative way, the dreadful lives that many people, especially young people, especially girls, are living in 'communities' ? And the more remote, the more dreadful, on the whole ? i.e. the communities' which have felt the slings and arrows of colonisation far less than people in the cities ? How's that ?

So even if it 'explains' anything at all, what to do about it ? Financial compensation, based on some sort of time-scale - the longer people have been 'colonised', the more compensation ? My kids would be interested since 'colonisation' for them goes back 170 years or more. It's interesting that their gr-gr-grandfather, if he were still alive after 170 years, could proudly look on his descendants who are university graduates and who number in the hundreds. They would also be interested in any financial compensation for the opportunities that 'colonisation' has given them.

Or perhaps large swathes of land can be given back in compensation ? Oh wait, that's already happened and presumably people are far better off now. No ? Why's that ? At least in SA, some of that land is very fertile, 'communities' have (or had, until they sold them) water rights. But I suppose that won't been enough ?

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:38:30 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
[contiued]

The right to use the land as they always had done ? That's already written into law, at least in SA. Are people taking up that opportunity ? Using the land as they always had done ? I can't really see it.

Now, compensation for the use of land for infrastructure by State and federal governments, including infrastructure which benefited them too - from the recent case, at about $ 10,000 per hectare. That would fill a few pockets, especially those of people with shares in breweries.

Royalties from mineral exploitation ? Already being done, for more than fifty years now. Tax-free too. Ain't 'colonisation' grand ?

My limited experience suggests that in rural and remote areas, where 'colonisation' has had the least influence, the main problems revolve around lack of education, lack of employment (not exactly symptoms of colonisation), access to grog and drugs, gambling, remoteness, alienation and total boredom. If anything, people there - mainly from the Coombsian days, post-Whitlam - haven't been given enough opportunities to participate in 'colonial' society - they have been shut out of the economy by the concurrent factors of keeping their kids out of school AND technological change, and thereby shut out of mainstream society.

But in the cities, where the Indigenous majority live, maybe one in four Indigenous women is a university graduate, one in seven men. That's a lot of 'colonisation'.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:43:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'll look at it when someone provides the evidence. "

Paul puts his hands over his eyes and says "I can't see the evidence".

Its little wonder that he so misunderstands the world.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 18 March 2019 12:02:17 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
Dear Paul,

The conscience of some Australians has finally been
awakened to the fact that Aborigines want to and will
make decisions for themselves. Until recently, many
Aboriginal aid schemes were run by " whites " who
adopted a paternal attitude to Aborigines treating them like
children and considering that only they knew what was best
for Aborigines.

In the last decades, legal aid, land rights, education and
health care for Aborigines have become the important issues
for government Aboriginal Affairs departments.

Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian, and
perhaps through ignorance, their plight has at times been
overlooked. Progress is being made at last in the
Aborigines' fight for the chance to survive in today's
Australia, and although much still needs to be done, perhaps
the outlook is more hopeful now than it has been in the past.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 March 2019 2:27:04 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
Among my numerous Aboriginal friends, there is not one who doesn't think that the arrival of Arthur Philip was not advantageous to them.
They can see what fate they escaped by Colonization, especially the women.
In fact, one woman lamented that as he was an Anglican, the Pope couldn't canonize him.

First Fleet diarist and writer Watkin Tench wrote of the injuries that a tribal woman was suffering from, they were injuries about the head and were not self-inflicted.
As I remember she had been beaten by her husband, I'll try to find the exact reference.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 18 March 2019 2:52:30 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
Is Mise,

Among your "numerous"Aboriginal friends?
Really?

Are they as "numerous" as your "numerous"
Indian friends who thought that the British
were great for India? (your wife doesn't count).
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 March 2019 3:11:26 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
Dear Foxy,

Australia, Indigenous people and communities have had self-determination fo nearly fifty years now. If anything, it seemed at the time that governments couldn't get out quick enough, to let community councils make their own mistakes.

Since then, around five thousand Indigenous organisations have been initiated, all free to make their own mistakes as well.

And that's where we're at in 2019.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 March 2019 3:23:37 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
yeah imagine leaving this communities of child abuse to self care. The intelligence of the left. Thank God for the likes of Bess Price who have the courage to stand up to the know it alls.
Posted by runner, Monday, 18 March 2019 4:24:06 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
Foxy,

I've had many Aboriginal friends and unfortunately, I've outlived most of them and a lot of them were years younger than me.

Among my Indian friends who think that the British did a lot of good are ones who think that putting an end to Sati, where widows voluntarily killed themselves (or were drugged by the husband's relatives) was very good work.

The Brits also put the Thugs out of action and modified the worship of Kali so that murders, both ritual and opportunistic, were no longer considered necessary to appease the Goddess.

The relief of some widows from life as 3rd class citizens only came about under British rule.
The practice of making child brides, who were unfortunate enough to have their husbands die in childhood, live the rest of their lives as widows was stopped to some extent and they were saved from a life as household slaves.
However, there's a lot yet to be done, but the Brits, started things off.

India has some 46 million widows and their lot is not a happy one.
http://www.vagabomb.com/8-Absurd-Customs-Indian-Widows-Have-Faced-Through-the-Years/
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-town-of-10-000-widows-where-women-are-starting-to-rebel
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 18 March 2019 7:39:42 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
Foxy, as Loudmouth has stated, most remote communities have had their own elected councils, supposing managing their affairs since the 70s. Also aboriginal legal aid and aboriginal health services have had elected aboriginal committees for decades. My husband was a JP and a member of the W.A. Aboriginal legal service executive committee for over 10 years, back in the 70s and 80s.
And if you wander around the North of Australia you will see that most of the flashiest new buildings belong to aboriginal corporations like land councils, health services etc.
Aboriginal people keep blaming lack of consultion for the lack of progress but if they were consulted anymore there wouldn’t be any time left to do anything
Posted by Big Nana, Monday, 18 March 2019 9:28:56 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
Big Nana,

Just a question - were the people running these
Aboriginal communities - these "elected" officials
white or Aboriginal? Is your husband Aboriginal?
Just curious how it works in remote communities.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 10:17:42 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
Dear Foxy,

I think it's universal that members of Indigenous community councils have to be Indigenous. As I recall, non-Indigenous people living in communities couldn't vote and probably still can't. I certainly couldn't, but maybe that's because I was such a useless bastard. So Indigenous councils make their own decisions, using funds allocated mostly from Canberra. If they make stupid decisions, then they are surely responsible for rectifying those decisions. Yes, they may have a white clerk, or administrator, or business manager, but they make the decisions.

One obvious problem with all of that from the outset has been that the education level, particularly the mathematical level, of elected council members may not be all that flash. I recall one old lady asking me, when $ 120,000 was offered from Canberra to either build four houses (those were the days) or buy up the next-door property of four thousand acres, cleared, on water, etc., "$ 120,000. That's about $ 1200, isn't it ?" Zeros meaning nothing, a string of zeroes meant even less.

Oh, and no, they didn't buy up the next-door property, they knocked down some quite serviceable houses which I had been cleaning, and got four new ones. One with solar panels (in 1976), which lasted more than three months. That house was gone by 1996.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 10:32:20 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
Mark Latham's idea as to how to determine aboriginality and therefore access to the myriad benefits being aboriginal brings, might resolve many disputes...

http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/03/11/one-nation-aboriginal-indigenous-dna

Not only would disputes over whether blonde, blue-eyed ABBAriginals were due benefits be objectively resolved but an end to the whole issue would be a mere 2 or 3 generations away by which time no one would be able to claim 25% aboriginality.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 11:48:30 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
Mhaze,

Or, of course, distribute any benefits on the basis of need alone.

Around sixty thousand Indigenous people have graduated from universities, overwhelmingly at full-degree-level. There are currently around twenty thousand Indigenous students at universities. A young-adult age-group would number about twelve thousand. About 140,000 Indigenous people have at some time, or are currently, enrolled in university courses since 1980.

There are tally not that many perks in tertiary education for Indigenous students: ABSTUDY is, as far as I can tell, about the same as AUSTUDY [the names may have been changed recently], and some assistance with travel costs. Given how many have taken up opportunities, there may not be any more need for any special financial assistance anyway.

But there certainly would be a need to somehow lift the education level of people in remote communities, if they wished to take up such opportunities, from pre-school right up to university graduation. But, if anything, it seems that university student numbers from rural and remote areas may have stagnated, or even be declining.

Maybe more university support programs for Indigenous people can lift their game, instead of relying on the low-hanging fruit of the urban population for their numbers.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 12:33:40 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
Dear Big Nana and Joe,

Thank You both for your explanations.

However, I am still bothered by the fact that former Prime
Minister Turnbull rejected the recommendation that an
Indigenous voice be constitutionally recognised
in the Parliament.

He said he didn't think it would get support and would be
"contrary to principles of equality and citizenship."

This so smacked of the past where every aspect of daily life
was deemed in need of supervision.

Former Referendum Council Co-Chair Pat Anderson described
our former PMs comments as "poor" and "crude"adding:

"This is who we are and we need to have a say or some kind of
input into the decisions that affect us."

The former PM upset many Indigenous leaders including Pat
Anderson by rejecting the key recommendations in the
Uluru Statement from the Heart (which he'd asked for).

It would appear that white rhetoric today that denies
self-determination and self-government is not much different
from that of over 100 years ago. Indigenous people speak
of the fundamental questions of sovereignty and treaty that
government in Australia has avoided and refused to
address for over a century.

What you're both saying and what the government is doing in
practice appears to be different.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 4:17:31 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
Dear Foxy,

Five thousand organisations have at least five thousand voices. The Indigenous MPs in almost every parliament in Australia have voices. There are national committees in health and housing and education etc., which have voices. The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples has many voices. There are Indigenous newspapers and journals and TV stations and god knows what else which all have voices.

If anything, it's amazing how little many of the most responsible voices have to say when there is so much they could be talking and writing about in their specific fields of expertise. Perhaps they don't know what to say ? They don't know enough about their own areas to say anything much ?

So what are all of those voices NOT saying which yet another body could say ?

I was puzzled by your statement that "this so smacked of the past where every aspect of daily life was deemed in need of supervision." I'm still trying to join the dots on that one :)

I know it's fun to manufacture a problem and then complain about it, but this is a bit rich.

Love notwithstanding,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 4:53:27 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
Anyway, to get back to topic, the High Court has ordered the NT Government to pay the equivalent of $ 20,000 per hectare to a native title group.

Native title now applies to more than two million square kilometres across Australia. On that basis, more than forty billion dollars should now be set aside to compensate for infrastructure built on Aboriginal land, even if it was for the benefit of the Aboriginal people involved, roads, schools, sewage systems, electricity cables, etc.

Like mineral royalties, these funds will not be taxed, and will probably, after deep consultation, be given out to individuals on a roughly per capita basis, depending on how close individuals are to the power structures in communities. One is tempted to suggest that everybody should buy brewery shares immediately, but that would be quite churlish.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 5:20:05 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
Hi Foxy,

What gets up my nose is the cynicism expressed by some that Aboriginal people should be grateful for all the "gifts" European colonisation has bestowed upon them. European colonisation was inevitable, so they say, but that inevitability does not negate the years of injustice where Aboriginal people were dispossessed, neglected and marginalised. That was the norm for almost 200 years, why did empire builders do that, because they could, and it advantaged them. Our band of histories revisionists want to tell us a different story, a story where it was the fault of the Aboriginal that he did not assimilate, as he should have, he was simply defiant and ungrateful for the goodness shown by the British.

Lets see if this hypothesis flies, I say those Europeans (Australians) captured by the Japanese during WWII suffered great misery and deprivation at the hands of their Japanese captors because they failed to recognise the great benefits of the Japaneses Empire, and the goodness of the Emperor. Should Japan have colonised Australia by way of Australia's defeat, of course all you lot would now be singing the praises of the Emperor. A bit like the Aboriginals should be doing.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 5:31:15 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
Foxy,

No comment on the millions of Indian widows?

Or do you think that they should still be treated in the pre-British manner?

Got any thoughts on the Caste System?

Should certain people be condemned to a life as the lowest in society?
Think of the plight of the Untouchables, certainly, their lot is improving in line with the democratic principles of British justice that India inherited.

But back to the widows, it was not British practice for them to immolate themselves on their husband's funeral pyre, that was a purely Indian idea, of course, it cut down on the number of widows, so as an inherited custom it would be considered OK, especially in regard to splitting up the estate (if any).
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 6:15:43 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
yeah Paul and just imagine the Maori's did not like the taste of some of the previous inhabitants of NZ. Don't hear you complaining about that.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 6:39:26 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
runner, Cannibalism was an accepted practice by many people, so what is your point. In the case of Maori and other Polynesian cultures eating of human flesh was not a form of sustenance, but rather a "religious" undertaking with the belief that eating of a powerful enemy transferred that enemies mana (power) to you.

The Hawaiians, to their surprise that they were able to accidentally kill Captain Cook, ate parts of him, not to denigrate him, but honour him, wanted to take on Cook's mana. The Hawaiians offered Cook's leg bones back to his crew to show respect.

Just like a few short generations ago you Christians were burning people at the stake. At that same time as Polynesians were eating people out of respect for their power, you were torturing people with fire. Now who were the barbarians.

"Edward Wightman, a Baptist from Burton on Trent, was the last person burned at the stake for heresy in England in Lichfield, Staffordshire on 11 April 1612." Great, great, great grandaddy runner probably supplied the matches.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 7:44:23 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
Is Mise,

You should ask your Indian wife about the
Indian widows pre-British customs - she
would know more about that subject - I'm sure.

Dear Paul,

This is worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 10:02:34 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
Now who were the barbarians.
Paul1405,
perhaps they were burning people at the stake out of respect for their power?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 4:18:02 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
I love this story because it comes from a time when western civilisation knew what was right and was confident enough to do what was right.

Charles Napier was a British general in India in the mid 19th century. He happened upon a group of Indians preparing a funeral pyre to sacrifice a widow. He attempted to stop the murder but was told it was their culture and he shouldn't interfere.

He responded ..."“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

The woman survived.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 6:52:18 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
Foxy, yes, all the the elected councillors in remote communities are aboriginal and yes, my husband was aboriginal. Dark skinned aboriginal.
Also, all the members of the executive committees of aboriginal health, housing and legal services are aboriginal. As are most of the staff in these agencies. For example, all aboriginal health centres only employ aboriginal health workers, the only non aboriginal people are the doctors. And that because aboriginal doctors seem to want to work in mainstream health.
Aboriginal media is mostly all aboriginal staff. In actual fact, aboriginal people are having a say in every aspect of their lives, despite their complaining about not having self determination.
Posted by Big Nana, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 9:43:28 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
mhaze,

Brilliant story.

Loved it - and will tag it for my future files.

Dear Big Nana,

Thank You for replying.

Bless you and a big hug.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 10:14:38 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
Hi Foxy,

Some might say, "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Not that I agree with burning widows, or people in general. Seems the British custom changed somewhere between the 17th and 19th centuries. poor Eddie was born a bit to soon.

Nah Indy, they were burning them at the stake because they were Public Servants, who did not pay the pension on time
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 12:41:13 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
Hi Paul,

Hmmm ...... a certain amount of projection there :). Nobody would claim that the inevitable invasion of Australia, similar to the invasion of every other part of the world over the last four thousand years or more, didn't cause immense hardship and loss for the Aboriginal people here. There were shocking 'casualties' of history here, Marx would concede, and cultural loss and malaise hasn't stopped yet. How many times do you reckon the Kurds have been invaded - two hundred, three hundred ? And their ordeal is not over yet, thanks partly to Trump and his gutless concessions to Turkey.

And not too many people would claim that Aboriginal people should be grateful (projection again, Paul?) History happened, it was dreadful, AND it was inevitable, given the imperialist nature of pretty much every group on the planet. We can make recompense by either fully embracing Aboriginal people into the arms of Australian society, or by preserving what can be preserved of traditional culture, or both. That recompense should be on-going, on the basis of need and the specific legislation that relates to Indigenous people and land.

Certainly, nobody much expects Aboriginal people losing praises of history, but neither should they ever again be shut out of Australian society. In reality though, the great majority of Indigenous people live and study and work and marry amongst non-Indigenous people. They're getting on with life and the opportunities it offers, as are Maori people in New Zealand.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 1:07:36 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
Foxy,

I took your sage advice and my wife came up with this,

http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-status-of-women-in-pre-independent-India

Now have a good read and then gloat about the dastardly British.

Here's a couple of quotes to warm the cockles of your heart,

"The surprising fact is that these were approved / sanctioned by Hindu religion!. British, who initially accepted these as irreversible and intrinsic part of Indian religions and then they later on helped Indians to abandon these social evils...
Many women were taxed if they want to wear upper cloth. The amount of tax was higher if breast was bigger. This was so cruel and barbaric."

and here's one of the replies and from an Indian,

"Jyotsna Khubchandani, lived in India
Answered Nov 12, 2015 · Author has 249 answers and 224k answer views
The status of women in medieval period was low.
The rule of Mughals introduced many social evils and practices like purdah system,child marriages,sati etc.
But with the advent of Britishers and during their ruling period,the status of women improved to a significant extent.
Many social workers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar worked for the upliftment of women and evil practices like sati were stopped and widow remarriage restarted.
Many legislations were also passed during that time to uplift the status of women."

How're you getting on with the Caste system?

You might read the following,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India
then you can blame all those mediaeval British who were in India.

Just in passing, the Caste system is alive and well all these years after Independence, just have a look in any Indian publication that has Marriage Proposal sections and see how many mention Caste.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 1:50:56 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
Is Mise,

Europeans used the ideology of colonisation to justify
their invasion of far-away continents and their
exploitation of the labour and wealth of the native
populations. Under this colonial ideology, the ruling
class of colonists were not considered invaders and exploiters,
instead they were pictured as the unselfish bearers of the
"white man's burden." The noble but demanding task of
bringing "civilisation" to "inferior" peoples.

The subject peoples seem for a while to have accepted the
legitimacy of colonisation, and vast populations sumitted
to rule by tiny settler minorities.

Eventually, however, they developed a consciousness of their
common plight and created an ideology that expressed their
own interests, nationalism. The entire colonial system
collapsed in the resulting conflict between the layers.

You mentioned the caste system?

This system has been a fundamental feature of Indian life
for over thousands of years. Although the caste system
was officially abolished in 1949, it still persists in
rural areas where it dominates the lives of tens of
millions of people.

I would suggest to you if you haven't already read these
books - try to get a hold of some of them. You'll find
them very entertaining:

1) " Holy Cow: an Indian Adventure," by Sarah Macdonald.

2) " A Suitable Boy," by Vikram Seth.

3) "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie.

There's also the TV series - "The Jewel In The Crown,"
which is brilliant - available on DVD.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 2:41:25 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
Dear Foxy,

Are you suggesting that the British should have left the caste system and sati alone, because it was, after all, part of Indian culture ? That's appalling. Good on imperialism, if it moved the rights of women forward in India (read Marx's scathing comments on Indian culture). Surely improvements in women's rights is step towards improving everybody's rights ?

In the early days here in SA, when an Aboriginal man beat his wife to death, the law treated him relatively leniently (inso far as he wasn't hung, as he would have been under the law), but was given a sentence, usually abut five years, since it was recognised that he did not understand the nature of the new legal system. No Aboriginal man has ever been executed for killing his beloved in SA. Are you suggesting that he should have got off scot-free, given that it was customary for a man to beat a woman to death if she upset him in any way, or if he thought she might be straying ?

I'm worried that the rationales of the extreme far-right, like this bastard's, and those of sections of the 'Left' and Islamists, are often mirror-images of each other - harking on past evils to justify the murder of innocent people NOW. Islamism uses the supposed evils of the past thousand years, to justify killing innocent people, this mongrel used the evil of Islam over the past thousand years to justify the killing of innocent people. So what's the difference ?

Surely innocent people, no matter who or where they may be, should not be killed ?

Including widows.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 21 March 2019 9:09:49 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
Australia will have one last chance this year to revert to being a Nation of thinkers & doers or go further down the path of being a Nation of hangers-on & deceitful & problem causing sheeple !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 21 March 2019 11:55:07 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
Foxy,

I really try not to do this, but it gnaws at me when I see flagrant historic errors.

1. Colonisation. It isn't an ideology. It has been around since at least the time of the great Phonetician expansions in the 2nd millennium BC and probably way before. There is nothing different about the British Empire as compared to, say, Rome or the Median empire.It has been a part of the human condition for as long as we know. No one needed to justify it in the same way no one needed to justify maternity. Its only been since the rise of western liberal ideals that colonisation has developed a bad reputation. Even then, it was only the rise of the USA that has seen the end of colonialism. But as with other such ideals, the eventual decline of the west and western ideals will see the resurgence of things like colonialism and slavery.

2. The subject people didn't accepted the legitimacy of colonisation. The accepted the legitimacy of superior weaponry. When you've got a spear and the other guy has a gun...he's in charge.

3. Nationalism. The subject races didn't "created an ideology that expressed their own interests, nationalism." Nationalism was a western idea, as was the very idea of a nation. The subject races, or more exactly their elites, used nationalism as a tool to escape subjugation.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 21 March 2019 12:11:09 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
Foxy I after reading some things said here I know I am a lucky man
See I will take my brain into the polling booth in two days
Some have not used theirs for near a decade
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 March 2019 12:52:54 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
mhaze,

What you need to do is look up - colonial ideology.
Then look up what was the ideology of the British Empire.
And if you have the time check in on the British Empire
in India to which I was responding.

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/views/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0034.xml
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 1:06:01 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
cont'd ...

OOOOOps - I again made a mistake in typing "views"
in the link when it should have been - "view"
My apologies.

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0034.xml
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 1:16:59 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
Foxy,

Have you actually read the book you recommended in your link? Because it doesn't say what you think it says. It points out there wasn't/isn't a colonialism ideology but instead each nation developed its own thinking behind their empire's purpose. It also makes the rather easily proven point that these various ideologies were developed more as an excuse or justification for the empire as opposed to a reason for it.

If you really want to find out about this issue, rather than make ill-informed pot-shots at the past, might I suggest the following:

1. Greek and Roman Colonization by Bradley and Wilson which explains the earliest examples of colonisation and justification thereof. It also draws the comparisons with modern empires that I mentioned earlier.

2. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire by Lawrence James. This is probably the most credited history of the empire although at 600 pages (in my copy of it) its very heavy going.

3. India and the British Empire - Oxford University Press. A series of essays that cover most issues on the British Raj and again some of the issues I've mentioned.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 21 March 2019 2:20:07 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
Some have not used theirs for near a decade
Belly,
Pot calling kettle black time is it ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 21 March 2019 2:25:52 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
mhaze,

I referred you to material that you could use.

I don't need educating in that area.

Been there done that.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 2:36:31 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
OK foxy, I haven't got the heart to chase you down the rabbit hole this time.

But just be aware that when you misunderstand history whilst thinking otherwise, you'll almost certainly misunderstand the present as well.

Speaking of colonisation...if you think its a thing of the past -

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/raze-07132010120547.html
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 21 March 2019 3:08:37 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
mhaze,

You may want to add to your list of books:

1) Inglorious Empire by Shashi Tharoor

2) The British in India by David Gilmour

Two very different aspects.
Good balance.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 3:19:53 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
indy any degree of self confidence you have is misplaced
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 March 2019 3:34:42 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
mhaze,

Thank You for your link to an example of
colonialism still existing today.

Here's another link for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in-africa-is-still-alive-and-well
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 3:44:32 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
numerous amount of Indigeneous women are very happy to call the police when they are being bashed by their man. I suppose they did not have that luxury prior to colonisation.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 21 March 2019 4:24:49 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
Yes Foxy,a perfect example of colonialism in your Guardian article...except:

There are no colonies in Africa
There haven't been for decades
All governments in Africa are native controlled

Basically what the article is saying is that anything that goes wrong in Africa is the European's fault.

People drown in the Mediterranean trying to escape their own government...Britain's fault.

Corrupt local governments mismanaging their resources and moving the corruptly acquired gains off-shore....Britain's fault.

Rained last Sunday...Britain's fault :)
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 21 March 2019 5:03:21 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
mhaze,

I take it that you see no credibility in the author's
claims about the money stolen from Africa and going
into British Banks. Okkkkkay.

And none of his other claims are valid either?

Okkkkay.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 5:26:19 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
cont'd ...

mhaze,

Perhaps this may help:

http://www.waronwant.org/resources/new-colonialism-britains-scramble-africas-energy-and-mineral-resources
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 21 March 2019 6:47:44 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
Foxy,

"Just in passing, the Caste system is alive and well all these years after Independence, just have a look in any Indian publication that has Marriage Proposal sections and see how many mention Caste."

Caste is alive and well in the cities of India also, but not among the Christians and Sikhs or the Muslims, it's a Hindu thing.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 21 March 2019 7:03:32 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
Australia was colonised by Britain & gave hundreds of thousands from all parts of the World the opportunity to start a better life. The indigenous of this country have both suffered & benefitted although the latter is being generally denied.
Their contribution to the building of this nation is universally acknowledged & the majority of the migrants are grateful also. Some from as close as NZ & as far afield & remote as Latvia however, keep tearing at the scabs of history's wounds & prevent the healing process for some ulterior motive ! They appear to revel in supporting those who openly declare their desire to alter the demographic of Australia to eventually be under the yoke of Superstition !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 21 March 2019 8:54:03 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
Foxy,

Revered mid-20th century economist, Joan Robinson once said.."The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism."

There are many in Australia who whine about us bringing in overseas capital and expertise to develop that which we can't do ourselves. Your article is that same whine but from a different place. Africa needs help to develop and join the 21st century. But there will always dills who don't get that and whine that the help doesn't come free.

Your author also whines about money being 'stolen'. But its not being stolen...he just uses that as an emotive word to suck in the gullible. But it may be obtained by some of his countrymen inappropriately and then stored in Europe as a safe haven. What he's really saying is that his own countrymen are corrupt and he wants someone else to solve that problem. And then he complains of colonialism!!

Of course, were these places left to their own devices and NOT 'exploited', there'd be whining, probably from the same people, that the west won't help them
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 22 March 2019 10:48:54 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
mhaze,
Perfectly summed up. All we need is to find a way to make all those intellectual experts capable of basic common sense thinking. This is probably the greatest challenge for the World yet !

Canem Malum too is excellent in his summing up of the situations as they arise.
Posted by individual, Friday, 22 March 2019 12:13:23 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
mhaze,

I got a different perspective than you from the
article on the "new colonialism."

The message that I got was that it was about raping
a nation's wealth to make yourself richer (in this
case the British). If we look at the colonialism of
the past history doesn't tell us that it was a
wonderful thing if you look hard at it - it was
about occupying, and suppressing many of the
world's original inhabitants of the conquered lands.
It was about war, greed. It involved the slave trade,
taking machine guns to natives like the Zulus, it was
about controlling a country like India's grain stocks,
and so on. I know many continue to tell us the
British empire was a wonderful thing and they were lucky
that it was the British who came.
That staggers me.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 22 March 2019 2:14:34 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
Foxy:

* "raping a nation's wealth to make yourself richer"

No. Its about creating a nations wealth to make everyone richer. A nation might have a lot of natural resources but they are only of value if that nation can access them. And that's where the money and expertise of the west comes in. Force them to stay away and the resources become useless. Now its true that much of that new wealth often doesn't make it into the hands of the people and instead gets expropriated by the nation's elites, but that's a problem for that nation to solve, not western bankers.

or are you advocating the west intervene in these other nations?

* " If we look at the colonialism of the past history"

Well this fictitious "new colonialism" has nothing to do with the old colonialism. But do go on...

*"it was about occupying, and suppressing many of the world's original inhabitants of the conquered lands."

Yes. That's what empire building does. Its been going on since at least Sargon the Great. But bear in mind that many of these 'original inhabitants' welcomed the newcomers. Many were already oppressed and actively helped the Europeans overthrow their native oppressors. Even in Australia, members of one tribe helped police against members of a rival tribe. Cortez had ten of thousands of natives in his army.

*" It involved the slave trade,"

In fact the slave trade had been operating for over 800 yrs before Europeans arrived in Africa.

* "controlling a country like India's grain stocks"

That's factually incorrect. The British bought some grain from India but never controlled the overall grain distribution. The volumes they bought were minor.

*" they were lucky that it was the British who came.That staggers me."

You misunderstand the argument. The view I and others offer is that Australia was going to be occupied by some imperial power. It was inevitable. We, or at least the aboriginals, were lucky that the occupying power was Britain. Had it been someone else there probably wouldn't be an aboriginal issue because there wouldn't be any aboriginals.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 March 2019 9:00:41 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
Foxy,

What machine guns were used against the Zulu?

There were two sides to the slave trade at point of origin, the buyers and the sellers.

In the African slave trade do you know who the sellers were?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 23 March 2019 10:04:49 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
In the African slave trade do you know who the sellers were?
is Mise,
You shouldn't corner do-gooders with such obvious questions, it only makes them say "see you on another thread".

Greed has no limits. I have made a point of watching ordinary working folk such as I doing their Tax returns. It was an eye-opener. They would have written off breathing or being stupid if they could !
The slave sellers & traders & in more cases than would be admitted to, the slaves themselves exploited everything that was exploitable, even each other !
Nothing has changed in the modern age !
It's a perfectly normal human trait even among do-gooders !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 23 March 2019 10:34:24 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
Is Mise,

Two Bari gun batteries were used at Ulundi; this being
the last significant battle of the war fought on 4th
July 1879. This was the first use of Gatling type guns
by the British army. Casualties were extremely one-sided
with roughly 40 Zulus killed for every British soldier.

Artillery, concentrated rifle fire and the manually operated
Gatling guns (not a true machine gun) all contributed to the
terrible loss of life.

Portugal and Britain were the most successful slave-trading
countries accounting for 70% of all Africans transported to
the Americas. Britain was the most dominant - the following
link explains more:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slavery/pdf/britain-and-the-trade.pdf
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 11:26:09 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
Do-gooders only focus on anti-European Explorers battle successes but insidiously ignore when others overwhelmed the explorers !
Hypocrisy knows no bounds !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 23 March 2019 11:41:59 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
mhaze,

The New Colonialism report we're told reveals the
degree to which British companies now control Africa's
key mineral resources, notably gold, gas and coal.
It documents how 101 companies listed on the London
Stock Exchange (LSE) - most of them British - have
mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries.

They collectively control over $1 trillion worth of
Africa's most valuable resources. The UK government
has used its power and influence to ensure that British
mining companies have access to Africa's new materials.
This was the case during the colonial period and is
still the case today.

http://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/TheNewColonialism.pdf

And -

http://waronwant.org/resources/new-colonialism-britains-scramble-africas-energy-and-mineral-resources
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 11:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

mhaze,

My apologies for the typo. I meant to say:

" The UK government has used its power and influence to
ensure that British mining companies have access to
Africa's raw materials (not new materials)."
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 12:05:29 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
South Africa is a perfect example today of what happens when power is put in tribal hands. Of course the violence, murder and racism is largely ignored due to it not fitting a very dishonest and rewritten history narrative. People are leaving in droves and have been for a couple of decades.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 23 March 2019 1:43:04 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
Foxy, so when you say these British companies "control" the African resources, what do you mean exactly.

You seem vexed by the fact that these companies are listed in London and somehow, in your utter ignorance of how these things work, think this means London controls the African resources.

BHP is listed in London. Does that mean London controls all of the Australian resources owned by BHP?

96% of Nigeria's exports are from resources extracted by companies partially owned by foreigners (mainly British) using foreign expertise. These companies gained access to these resources after Nigeria changed policy in the 1980s so as to boost their economy. Currently close on 50% of the government's income derives from said companies. 10% of the population is employed by them and a further 10% derive their income from supplying these companies.

Are you in favour of all that closing down so that this fictitious 'new colonialism' can be discontinued?

If the Nigerians have to live in poverty to satisfy your virtual signalling them so be it. Sacrifices have to be made, eh?
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 March 2019 2:05:39 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
mhaze,

Why don't you read the links I gave - and then
make an intelligent guess as to what is meant
by what is written. It is not something that I
have made up. This is from people who have
done their research and know what they are
talking about.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 2:25:30 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
Foxy,

So, right at the end of the Zulu campaigns, you manage to find a few hand-operated repeating firearms (which you say were not true machine guns).
So, by your own admission, your statement was wrong.

At the original point of sale who sold the African slaves?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 23 March 2019 3:17:15 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
Is Mise,

I had naturally assumed you would know the history of guns.
Certainly on one as famous as the Gatling gun.

The Gatling gun is a hand-driven machine gun. It was the first
firearm to solve the problem of loading reliability and the firing of sustained bursts...the Gatling gun is a machine gun that consists of multiple barrels revolving around a central axis and is capable of being fired at a rapid rate.

It is a fore-runner of the modern machine gun and I stated
that it was not a "machine-gun" as defined in modern terms
because that weapon fires automatically. I assumed you would
have known this otherwise I would have explained this to you.

As for the British slave trade?
I gave you a link - if you're interested in learning more -
I'm sure you can Google the information for yourself.
On this or any other subject.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 4:03:43 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,

Why don't you know who sold the slaves to the slave traders?

I would have thought that you would have done some basic research on the subject.

Have you found any nasty things that the British got rid of in Indian society; I did tell you, did I not, that they suppressed the Thugs.

Try this on Lord William Bentinck,

http://www.gktoday.in/gk/suppression-of-thugs-by-lord-william-bentinck/

and written by Indians for Indians.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 23 March 2019 4:48:53 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
Is Mise,

It's more beneficial for you to do your own research.
You learn and retain more.

It's not my job to do it for you.

As for what the British did in India - I have many
books on my shelves on the subject.

Thanks anyway. - save it for mhaze. He may be
interested.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 6:34:47 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
cont'd ...

Is Mise,

Talking about books about India by Indians:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/23/inglorious-empire-what-british-did-to-india-shashi-tharoor-review
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 March 2019 6:44:51 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
Foxy,

"This is from people who have done their research and know what they are talking about."

No Foxy, this is from people who are anti-semites and anti-capitalist.

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2013/12/war-on-want-charity-that-is-just-anti.html (just one of many articles exposing these people's real intent)

This isn't an unbiased piece of research. This is propaganda designed to fool those who are willingly gullible.

They use the word "control" because its emotive and draws in those who want to be misled. Nowhere do they explain how these companies 'control' the resources. They just say it and the Foxy's of the world believe it.

In fact, these companies work under license to the various governments to access the resources and then sell to the world. The governments provide such license because it is beneficial to the nation. We do the same here. Its how the world works - its just that some people don't know how it works and others use that to fool them.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 24 March 2019 9:16:17 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
Foxy,

Who sold the slaves to the European slave traders?

I just want to see if you know, I've done my research.

Next time I'm speaking to Shasti I'll tell him that he has an admirer in Australia who is as one-eyed as he tends to be.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:31:14 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
Is Mise,

I can tell him myself - when I next see him.
:-)
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:51:48 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
Foxy,

You've never met him, but have you found out yet who sold the slaves to the Europeans and the Arab slave traders as well.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 24 March 2019 12:04:26 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
Is Mie,

Is that why the slaving stations West Africa usually went only a hundred metres or so inland from the beach, or on islands out in the bay ? So who actually captured those people who were to become slaves ? Other African groups, who passed them on to Arab slavers, who then took them to the coast and sold them on to the slave ships ?

So ...... Africans, Arabs (i.e. Muslim African groups?) AND Europeans were all involved in the slave trade ?

How far back does it go ? Hugh Thomas in his magnificent history of slavery, seems to take it right back to the Romans, and of course before then, in Egypt.

So when did the slave trade end ? The British stopped the actual trade in about 1808, I think, and banned slavery altogether (officially, at least) in the mid-1830s. But it continued across the Middle East, and the Saudis eventually banned it (officially, at least) in 1962. So slavery has been banned now for well over fifty years in the enlightened Middle East. Officially, at least. It still exists in Mauretania and maybe other Muslim-African countries, but the slaves there now have the right to vote in national elections, going back nearly fifteen years now.

Of course, India still has maybe forty million debt-slaves, people who never pay off their debts and remain slaves for life, as do their children after them. But that's Indian culture which we know shouldn't really ever be criticised from our biased and ethnocentric point of view.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 24 March 2019 12:50:18 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
mhaze,

Well you've lost me now.

Stooping to give the extremist Zionist blogger's website
as a reputable source - against the "war on want"
a registered charity - is despicable. Of course this nutter
would be against "war on want" they're pro justice for Palestine.
He (Edgar Davidson) started blogging in 2005 to protect what he
claims is the blatant anti-Israel bias that permeates every
aspect of British society. " He always seeks new ways to
high light the hypocrisy of the anti-Israel narrative."

In other words he's a nutter.

His attack on and online abuse after a 15 year old girl's
prize-winning speech on Palestine - was shameful.

You should have been discerning enough to opt for a
little fact-checking as to who this blogger is.
Had you done that perhaps you would not have been so
easily convinced by false information.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 March 2019 1:14:22 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
cont'd ...

mhaze,

http://www.thenational.ae/world/london-teen-faces-barrage-of-online-abuse-after-prize-winning-speech-on-palestine-1.212877
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 March 2019 1:53:42 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
Oh dear Foxy,

" He always seeks new ways to high light the hypocrisy of the anti-Israel narrative."

Therefore he's a nutter? Holding opinions that aren't approved by others makes him a nutter?

Are you aware that there are credit processing organisations who no longer allow donations to "War on Want" to be processed through their facilities because of WaronWant's links with terrorist organisations?
Didn't think so.

But this isn't the point. You were treating this 'research' from them as though it was a dispassionate examination of the facts. When in fact it is a mere propaganda piece designed to do exactly what it did do...deceive the willingly gullible.

War on want?...you know what is the first causality of war, right?
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 24 March 2019 3:28:31 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
mhaze,

What makes Edgar Davidson a nutter is his extremist Zionist views.
And his irrational, abusive and vile attacks on people such as the 15 year old Palestinian teenager.
The man's behaviour is not rational. Do your research.
"War on Want" is listed amongst the top 26+ reputable
and reliable non-profit charity organisations. Again
do your research.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 March 2019 3:42:22 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
"Do your research."

Well I'm sure you practice what you preach so I'm sure you did all the necessary research on WaronWant.

And having done all your wonderful research I'm sure you found that they have been sanctioned for funnelling donations through to terrorist organisations. You couldn't have missed that during all this wondrous research, could you?

So the question becomes...why did you choose to ignore their clear links with terrorists as you dutifully accepted their agenda?
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 25 March 2019 7:21:14 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
Can we move on for mirror-image arguments on both left and right ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 25 March 2019 8:42:41 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
mhaze,

Who's doing the accusing against "War on want?"

Yes I have done my research. You obviously accept
what the Zionist extremists lobby are saying with their
smearing attempts. These outmoded tactics no longer
work for most of us. Being against Zionism does not
equate to anti-Semitism. Nor does seeking justice
for Palestine. But in the eyes of the Zionist any
organisation that seeks to do so - is a "terrorist"
organisation. These people - including their powerful
lawyers are out for one cause - that of Israel.
They don't have accountability structures or a place
for fact-checking - they provide people with content
that is just inaccurate.

Have a read of some of Edgar Davidson's blogs. They're
quite horrific.

Please don't continue to quote this garbage to me any
longer. I won't be reading it or responding to it.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 25 March 2019 1:15:29 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All

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