The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia Day: the least we can do is accept our own history > Comments

Australia Day: the least we can do is accept our own history : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 25/1/2016

The fact Stan Grant’s compelling speech has gone viral shows just how deeply this refusal to accept the reality of Australia’s history resonates with so many people.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Ok, I exaggerated.
So far I've learned that 1. You guys do not think the colonial invaders should have treated the defenders of their country with humanity, dignity or respect. 2. You think it acceptable that the original inhabitants were de-facto labelled nonhuman, so the entire continent could be declared terra nullius, making it open slather on getting rid of indigenous vermin.
3. You think the present way of life is the best, despite it being the cause of the planet’s sixth mass extinction through destruction of land habitat by clearing, waterways and the ocean by dumping contaminants creating 'dead zones' and great floating garbage patches.
4. You don’t care that most of the world's >40,000 tropical tree species are globally threatened because about 80,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed each day, taking with them over 130 species of plants, animals and insects.
5. It doesn't concern you that fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other poisons destroy the soil in which we grow our food by reducing the nutrients and killing the microbes.
6. You support prodigious military contamination and destruction of soil ranging from the radioactive contamination of vast areas to the extensive and multifaceted chemical contamination that occurs at military bases.
7. It doesn't worry you that, like destroying the oceans, destroying the soil is an ongoing investment in future extinctions, with human extinction possible by 2040.
Question: ‘Do you honestly think our environmentally destructive way of life is better than one that keeps it healthy and productive?
Posted by ybgirp, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 2:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you ever picked up a history book on colonial Australia because you were interested in the history of your own country? No, I thought not. You don't want to read anything that would contradict your black armband detestation of our ancestors. Accusations are accepted as fact. Like all western self loathing Flagellants like Andrew Barton, you have a compulsive need to think that your own people are the scum of the earth. And that you and Andrew are different, something special.

The British considered Australia Terra Nullius because they thought that aboriginals were simply nomads, like the gypsies or the Bedouin. That was a reasonable assumption. The aborigines did not build towns or villages, they grew no crops, nor erected any fences. And our ancestors were 16th century colonists living precariously at the ends of the Earth, not 20th century anthropologists living comfortably in Glebe

The most common estimate of aboriginal numbers at the time of white settlement is around 250,000-300,000 people, and that after 40.000 years of habitation. Their mortality rate mut have been horrendous. What does that tell you about the joys of primitive life? One anthropologist once summed up primitive life as being "Harsh, brutal and short." After 200+ years of white settlement, there are now over 600.000+ people claiming to be aborigines. The aborigines seem to have become fruitful and multiplied under European civilisation.

Once again, you are sprouting some nonsense about how evil the modern world is. If you think that the human race should have stayed living as primitives or peasants, living in commune with nature, then I can assure you that there are real primitives and real peasants who would think that you need your head examined. The people that immigrate to Australia from countries where they were real primitives and real peasants want to live in the modern world. But you dream of being a cave man, do you?

We are living in the most free and most prosperous time in human history. And all you can see is negatives. You must be fun at a party.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 6:28:39 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
pribyg,

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yes, pretty much, all things considered.

4-7. A bit of a side-track ? Actually, I agree with you on most of it, but it's not completely relevant to this thread.

Your last question: Compared to what ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 6:57:49 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
I hate to nitpick, LEGO, but most estimates of the indigenous population at the time of white settlement are actually between 750,000-1,000,000. Simply Google it. I have never seen an estimate as low as your 250,000-300,000.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 7:42:04 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
Hi AJ,

Those figures are quite ludicrous. Even Butlin didn't float off into the ether with such figure, and he usually tended to assume optimal numbers, rather than the minimal numbers more appropriate to the conditioning factor of drought.

On one-in-a-hundred-year droughts, half the country might be affected, and for a decade or so. That happened between 1892 and 1904, and again last decade. Affected populations would have been seriously diminished, and it would take sometime to build up numbers again, before the next drought.

So 150,000 in hard-to-'normal' times, to 250,000 in optimal times after long good spells, would be more appropriate. Say, 200,000 at a rough hypothetical 'average'.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 8:23:20 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
Well I don't know where you get your information from either, Joe.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/68AE74ED632E17A6CA2573D200110075?opendocument
http://demography.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/working-papers/97.pdf
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 8:58:39 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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