Hi Andris,

I believe some are falling into the trap of confusing materialism with civilization. Are we today more civilized than the Ancient Greeks? Material wise we are certainly more advanced, we can put a man on the Moon, they could not, but it does not mean we are more "civilized". Little known fact, when the Barbarians sacked Rome they stopped the practice of feeding people to lions in the Colosseum, they believed it to be uncivilized. I consider the Buddha to be one of the most civilized humans to ever live, a man of virtually no material possessions, yet extremely civilized in my view, and he lived two and half thousand years ago in a time when material advancement around him was negligible compared to today. Civilisation is in the mind, not in the hands.

Andris,
You're painting an untrue picture !

Hi PAUL,

I agree with you comletely. The same civilisation expert I quoted above explores his view on Aborigines further:

“To those who judge the degree of (a) culture by the degree of (its) technological sophistication, the fact that the Australian natives live in the same fashion now as they did thousands of years ago may imply that they are uncivilized or uncultured.

However, I would suggest that if (a) civilization be defined (by) the degree of polishing of an individual’s mind and the building of his or her character, and if that culture (reflects) the measure of our self-discipline as well as our level of consciousness, then the Australian Aboriginals are actually one of the most civilized and highly cultured peoples in the world today.” E.Nandisvara Nayake Thero

He can be Googled where he elaborates the facts he found that back up his claim.

Hi Andris,

Its interesting how the European, for us particularly the British, viewed other cultures. From the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries the British were fascinated by the material achievements of others, they carted enough of it off back to England, but still regarded such cultures and civilisations as inferior, as they lacked that British "refinement". An example, other religions fascinating as they were, still they were inherently wrong, and in realty had to be replaced with the superior Christian religion, it was a god given mission of the European to do so. Cultural practices were also of interest, but again inferior and in need of replacement. Indigenous people were seen as being at the bottom rung, either complete savages, or childlike creatures in need of salvation, and the British with their high minded attitudes were the right people to do it. The fact there were material spin offs for the colonisers was, well, it was not the primary motivation so they would say. This attitude of European superiority continued well into the 20th century.

Hi Paul, yes, the famous 'white man's burden'.

A powerful evidence to back what you are saying is the history of the British East India company, one of the, if not the biggest imperialist ventures in history.
Not unlike the invaders' arrogance in Australia.

I watched this brilliant doco and gasped.
It can be watched until the 17th of August.

All apologists ought to watch this as a wake up call:

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/489515075553