Yindin, Europeans did indeed commit all those crimes.

But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even as it acquired the resources of five continents and fought the bloodiest wars in history, European civilisation midwifed unprecedented intellectual progress.

This "progress" in philosophy and science is not something Europeans can arrogate to themselves. Other peoples would have done the same if history played out differently. It's something that could have, would have taken place in any human milieu that was open to change -- indeed forced to accept change -- from within as it amassed wealth and power. It happened for the Chinese in the past (and again in China now), for Greece and Rome, for the Arabs as jihad swept across North Africa. Great civilisations are by their nature born shamefully in blood and conquest.

We've done very well out of conquering and stealing and gouging and trading. But like Alexander, having run out of world, it's time for a rest.

Our civilisation is still steeped in unjustifiable prejudice. The advances we have made in understanding the natural world permit us -- now -- to understand the factual error of this prejudice without surrendering wealth or the material gain of technology. We are at the point of being able to choose, now, to pursue sustainable development in solidarity with all humankind. It's very idealistic -- we might as easily choose, with our present leadership, to cling to the traditional "Genesis 1.28" arrogance and self-confidence which has served us so well. That way madness lies.

It is necessary now for industrial civilisation (still presently dominated by rich bastards of European extraction, though that is changing) to accept the limitations of its resources and its pollution sinks, and to treasure what remains in the wild world. It is equally vital for us to recognise the fundamental humanity of the people with whom we share the planet, and to share its bounty fairly.

Failure to do the one will lead to catastrophic economic and ecological collapse.
Failure to do the other will lead to a diminishment of our own humanity.

As far as civilization goes, Yindin, Sigmund Freud (a deceased European Elder) wrote, “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.”

Remember also, those on OLO often consider themselves amongst the most civilized..

Whilst culture has always preceded civilization, many primitive cultures have been destroyed in its path – the aboriginal culture, however, where ‘the earth ‘owns’ us and not we the earth’ will one day return.

And the wind shall say, "Here were decent godless people;
Their only monument the asphalt road
And a thousand lost golf balls."
~T.S. Eliot

Hi Yindin... nice to hear from an indigenous bloke (?)

ur right.. there was a lot of cultural arrogance and superiority attitude among the early Europeans who came here.

Permit me please to say also though, if it were not the Brits..it would have been the Germans, Portugese, Dutch, Japanese.. SUMbody would have taken advantage of these wide open spaces in the name of their 'civilization'.

Sadly, your mob did not kill every white skin which came here on the spot.. as many indigenous groups now know..that was a big mistake.

In the long run, it still would not have prevented colonization, due to technology and weapons and numbers.

So, I believe we should put right as much as we can.. such as unpaid wages with interest.. etc..but the land issue ? wow..thats a hard one.
I'd rather see indigenous people assimilate, but if not..what do you propose ? Live in a traditional way ? I'd be cool with that too, but around the cities it isn't practical. I've suggest governments do compulsory taking of houses near creeks important to indigenous tribes, and allow Aboriginals to live in them to re-establish the sense of connection to the land.
Not many takers so far :)

Feel free to tell us what you think should happen ?

David Long says: "The fact that people did what they thought was right or good or beneficial, that is, in accordance with rational choice was disposed of by the assumption that these were only values and hence, subjective tastes."

Well I value my life. You can do any scientific test you like. Give me a lie detector - anything. Hold a gun to my head and do a brain scan and you'll see my amygdala, that is, my brain's alarm system stimulated. We all have an amygdala which has evolved so that if you stimulate one part you get the fear factor, another and you get appeasment and yet another you'll have outbursts of rage. Flight, fight and appeasement. Read a few scientific journals and you'll find that to be proven beyond doubt. So it is therefore right or benifical of me to live in a society of individuals and families who also value life. Now that is subjective "taste" or more correctly it is a plain fact as established by not only the lie-detector test but also a pretty well ingrained survival instinct.

I put it to you, David, that once it is established that a value is proven to be a generally undeniable and unrefutable truth on the base human level (before certain propagandists have devalued life through instilling fear of the Other) - then it becomes more than "subjective taste" and more an objective truth. We are programmed for survival, normal unaffected people don't needlessly choose death, so therefore life is valued.

On the other hand, if we follow the line of thinking DL posits, we end up with a society of individauls and families that does not value human life based on science but on cultural mores. That sees the taking of it (innocent or not) as logical and dependent on subjective taste. A bit like the terrorists.

BOAZ wrote: "European civilisation midwifed unprecedented intellectual progress"

I take you were still born then?

Multiculturalism has been abused by governments and big business to prevent people from defending their interests in stopping high immigration to Australia. When people tried to protest at the wonton overwhelming of natural water supplies, when they attempted to make the connection between the property developer lobby groups pushing for high immigration, they were chastised and humiliated by unfair calls of racist. Thus multiculturalism as an idea has become misused as an ideology. This is most unfortunate. It has also provided a convenient way of identifying voter sectors for targeting by politicians. The idea that racism is the dominant evil in Australia seems to me to be a witch-hunt. Racism and classism and all the other isms that divide do much better when populations are made to grow fast and water, soil and shelter become resources to battle for, at first in the market and later in the streets. We have a beautiful country here which we are serving up to big business like a cheap restaurant dish. I used to love the idea of multiculturalism but I fear that I am suffering by its misuse as a blunt instrument of political manipulation. I like to know people from many countries but I do prefer for culture to come from an awareness of this land and its biophysical qualities, instead of some commercially produced promotion of 'culture' as a brand to fight over. Education has also been seduced by developer run organisations like APop which is scandalous. Not long before MacDonalds puts add in exercise books, I guess. Australia has sold out its education system and the rich are collecting political parties the same way the collect football teams. We are being repackaged into artificial tribes, the better to sell more cultural and plastic trinkets to.