My daughter was only telling me this week about a classroom discussion that got out of hand. As we know, the "current" curriculum pays a lot of attention to Australian identity and indigenous culture, but in my daughter's class these efforts, at least in part at reconciliation--what the conservatives like to deprecate as social engineering--still met with lots of resistance. She tells me the majority of the class, given licence to speak up and no doubt parroting their parents' prejudices, complained loudly about the privileges and extra benefits enjoyed by virtue of being aboriginal.
The indigenous population is not merely despised but, perversely, resented!
The cycle goes on despite the Left's efforts. Meanwhile the conservatives bring back the three R's ostensibly to address poor educational outcomes--but imo just as much to purge the history books.

Bernie
"JKJ, you may have established in your own mind that there is no rational justification for climate change..."

I never claimed or believed that there is "no rational justification for climate change". (It's meaningless btw. The climate doesn't need a "rational justification" to change.)

"but it's not about rationality, it's about science..."
Take out the rationality, and what is left of science?

That's what the warmists have got.

Rationality is the implicit precondition of science. If a theory is fallacious, it can't be scientific.

"If you see the science differently than me and say there has been no climate change since the start of the industrial revolution, you're entitled to your belief and of course will argue for no action to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere."

It's not about beliefs, mere subjective opinions, it's about whether claims are fallacious and therefore invalid or not.

No-one has ever argued that "there has been no climate change since the start of the industrial revolution". That is just a grotesque misrepresentation of the skeptics simple point that the warmists lack reason for their three central contentions.

You clearly have not understood what the public debate has been about.

It is about whether human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming which policy can remedy at a worthwhile cost.

Nothing of what you have said has established that support for climate policy has any rational basis; while I have shown that it does not.

Merely repeating irrational beliefs does not make them true.

Whatev, Poi.

I must be a bit hung-over this morning because I don't get your point: that you spent some months with Aboriginal kids as a child, so you know all about Indigenous history and policy ? With the greatest of respect, dearie, I beg to differ.

Hi Squeers,

So you're into cultural studies ? Where stance and pre-conceived ideological bias trumps evidence ? Don't worry about truth or reality, just feel the passion ? Again, with the greatest respect, my boy, sometimes you have to take note of reality. Alas, it seems that your poor daughter has to do that too. Those pesky kids ! Why can't children just BELIEVE, why do they have to ask awkward questions ? Probably because they are not total idiots, even at a young age.

By the way, I'm NOT equivocating over numbers: I have them, you don't. You can equivocate over something you know nothing of, I'll try to stick to what I can empirically demonstrate.

So surprisingly few kids ever taken into care improperly: poor Bruce Trevorrow being the only one in Australia so far. Amazing, really.

So: no, I don't believe people were herded onto Missions. There's not a shred of evidence of that, at least in South Australia.

No, I don't believe people were pushed off their lands: the legislation of 1851 enshrined land-use rights in every pastoral lease. And those rights are still there.

No, I don't believe Missionaries stopped people speaking their languages: all the early Missionaries learnt their local language as quick as they could and tried to teach in it: Teichelmann and Schurmann at the Adelaide School, Meyer at the Encounter Bay School, Taplin at the Pont McLeay School, the Lutherans up at their schools in the north-east at Kopperamanna and Killalpaninna. But people quickly learnt English at most of those places as well - i.e. people gained another language and became bilingual - and with greatly increased mobility, and people moving freely around their regions, in time children at Missions often couldn't speak the local language.

Anything else ? Feel free :)

[TBC]

[continued]

BTT: so the warming pause has, according to the British Met Office, gone on for 15 years. Why and how ? Where has the heat gone ? And how can any assertions be measured ?

Again, Squeers, we come back to empirical evidence. It's a cruel world for cultural theorists. But perhaps the uni bar is open, for commiserations against an unbelieving audience :)

Oh, just a couple of extras for your passionate outrage:

* I don't believe that Indigenous people are in any more poverty than other Australians. Squalor perhaps, but poverty no. I did a study :)

and

* In the light of the Hindmarsh Island scam twenty years ago, I came to realise that a 'tradition' only has to be a few weeks old before people will believe that it is a 'tradition'. I had relations by marriage on both sides of that one, people I had loved and admired, but I was appalled how it was played out by the proponents for gullible white audiences: on one occasion, for the newspapers, one proponent accused one of the elderly dissidents of being a 'woman of the streets'. For the white audience, of course, since anybody who knew them both, knew that they were very closely related, sort of cousins, and through non-Ngarrindjeri relations from Kingston way.

Now, of course, all the young women believe all the secret women's business scam, chapter and verse.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Oh, so sorry to step on your learned bunions....at least my experience was "an experience" and not some trumpeted skewed narrative from someone who wishes to push one view of history.

That mission appeared reasonably well run. However, There was no indigenous cultural input into those girls' lives. They/we were expected to do "all" the chores. The white lady in charge of our house had two toddlers which she cared for in a part of the house sectioned off from the rest. She cooked the meals - that's "cooked"....we prepared the food for cooking, served it, and cleaned up. Everything else was done for her, except the actual task of putting items into the washing machine, which she insisted on doing herself. Hanging it out, bringing it in, ironing (and her family's ironing was shared out amongst we girls) housework....everything was done by "the girls".

The main feeling I gleaned from the indigenous girls was one of resentment. They kept their feelings inside and just carried on. There appeared to be no tangible connect between the girls and their caregivers - save for everyday machinations....no emotional connections at all, especially with the older girls.

My position at 14 being one of the "girls" and yet not was somewhere in the middle - a good vantage point to take note of the nuances of the relationship.

Again, sorry, for the first-hand info...I know how little that means to you and your agenda.

Cheers

<So you're into cultural studies ? Where stance and pre-conceived ideological bias trumps evidence ? Don't worry about truth or reality, just feel the passion ? Again, with the greatest respect, my boy, sometimes you have to take note of reality>

What are you drivelling about?
I have made logical propositions you are at liberty to engage with; what I am talking about is not subject to empiricism, or rather empiricism is inadequate at best.
But your position is not based on empiricism, or rather your "evidence" base is selective, partial and secondary rather than primary; supposing there was such a thing as primary evidence which lent itself to such complex conclusions.
Worse, your rationale is preconceived and your "findings" conform as stubbornly as a compass to that ideological influence. The same influence which dictates your position on climate change.

In any case, you haven't provided any empirical evidence yourself?
Or logical argument!

In fine it is you, poor deluded fellow, who has lost touch with reality, who assembles his own "truths", like themed lego, and unwittingly mocks himself in mocking others.

But I shall try not to be provoked into saying more, off topic, on this thread; though I can back up everything I've said above.
I'm sure we can revisit the subject matter another time.

You've had an interesting life, Poirot : )