The Right To Be Left Alone

For some years, I’ve agonised over a dilemma. In yet another a fit of insanity, I began sketching out a novel, set in the 1750s in a Swiss skiing chalet (‘presentism’) during the worst blizzard in a century. But amongst the enthusiastic skiers are the Prince of Wales (the future George III), his naval assistant, Arthur Philip and Philip’s friend Wilberforce; Benjamin Franklin; Voltaire; Kant; the philosophes Condorcet and Beccaria; Edmund Burke; and a ‘Monsieur Antoine’, who provokes long discourses on ‘the noble savage’ and his natural rights. Inevitably, passionate discussion turns to the Great South Land, and whether its noble inhabitants should be left alone, on an inviolate continent, untouched by the outside world.

Its north, west and south-west coasts are well-known from the writings of the Dutch explorers Tasman, Hartog, Janszen, Nuyts, as well as Portuguese and Spanish ships’ captains and Dampier, along with many others. It’s agreed that ‘Australia’ should be kept inviolate, from all exploration, settlement and/or invasion, by any imperialist powers. The foraging peoples there are to be kept isolated from the rest of the world forever, if possible. Of course, alternatively, some participants like Burke observe that, in an Enlightened world, it may be beneficial for ‘Australia’’s inhabitants to be brought into the family of nations and the embrace of modern technology. This objection is dismissed as patronising.

The discussants explore how this can be achieved, for centuries if need be. Philip advises the future king that it would require a huge, permanent naval force to patrol the entire ‘Australian’ coast-line, out of sight of land if possible. Franklin observes that such a fleet would require another huge fleet to keep it provisioned. Agreement would have to be sought with all potential imperialist powers, ideally with their participation in a joint naval patrolling force, thus boosting their economies (but draining their treasuries). Would this be possible, they (and I) wondered ?

My novel and my naivety taper off there. I didn’t build in Russian, Japanese or Chinese expansionism in future centuries. Should I abandon this project ?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

No. Don't give up the project.

I for one would like to see how it all ends.

Perhaps the imaginative saga could lead to a better future
for the Continent. And a better understanding of its native
inhabitants. Out of fantasy, good things can happen - as
many discoveries have proven in the past. The thing is to
persevere. Only through perseverance does one achieve
something worthwhile.

Don't frustrate yourself,Joe. If you were going to write you would have done it long ago. I've been there, done that. Reading authors who were serious about writing - who didn't have to ask other people if they should write - is the best way to go. Nobody meant to write hesitates to do it.

Dear Foxy,

You can be a rather 'sweet child of peace' and I do adore you for it but I suspect Loudmouth was making a political statement rather than flagging a novel. Although perhaps you knew that.

I will admit “Condorcet and Beccaria” pulled me up. No idea of who they are but when I hit a less busy period I will try and check them out.

I do imagine what might have been if a Treaty of Waitangi style exercise was entertain here in Australia. 500 tribes in NZ signed off on it. If we had had leadership committed to the same here in Australia it is sobering to think how the country might have looked now.

I am doing my little part in helping rescue a Victorian indigenous culture from the history books. It is living and breathing because of a small band of dedicated individuals.

My sentiment at the moment is that people like Loudmouth can go jump. Perhaps tomorrow I will wake up on the other side of the bed.

"It’s agreed that ‘Australia’ should be kept inviolate, from all exploration, settlement and/or invasion, by any imperialist powers. The foraging peoples there are to be kept isolated from the rest of the world forever, if possible."
That's a huge non sequiter - rejecting colonisation is one thing, but why would anyone reject trade as well?

Too late, by the time prescribed the native inhabitants have been introduced to Islam, and are freely trading and wife swapping with the Indonesians.

Maybe if left that way, things may have turned out more successfully for them than suffering the forced incursions of Christian missionaries, intent on supporting the land grabbing Poms.

Good writing begins with good research. Joe, I recommend you do some investigating into North Sentinel Island, pretty much the only place on Earth where the sort of thing you're talking about has happened. It might benefit you to learn about how this sort of thing has played out in the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island

Diver Dan, the Indonesians were already being “loaned” wives by the nw coastal tribes.
I’m presuming that explains part of the physical differences seen in these areas.

SteeleRedux, just out of interest, what parts of culture are you reviving?
I’m always pleased that people take an interest in preserving local languages but that’s a very small part of the overall culture.

Dear Steele,

Thank You for your kind words.

I wasn't sure what sort of statement Joe (Loudmouth)
was trying to make with his novel. However, it intrigued me
enough to learn more and therefore I definitely want him
to persevere.

His story appears to have all the elements to enthral us -
great characters (Condorcet, Beccaria, et al), humour
(Monsieur Antoine), and possibly a firm moral couched in
entertaining surroundings that will hit home gently.

Joe's reference to "the noble savage" aroused my interest.
Shades of Desmond Morris and "The Naked Ape."

I look forward to what happens next.

Sometimes when we venture on a particular journey (as Joe
is attempting to do) we get more than we initially expected.
And the experience is its own reward.

Don't you just lurve the affair between Foxy and SteeleRedux! Thanking each other. Complimenting each other. For Foxy, it used to be A.J. Philips, another extreme Left misanthrope. A.J is out, SR is in. It's like watching one of those 'reality' TV shows.

Dear ttbn,

Don't be jealous.

I'm sure that there's people on this forum that
like you as well. (smile).

cont'd ...

Besides, I should add that I also admire -
Joe (Loudmouth), David Fisher, O Sung Wu,
Hasbeen, Paul1405, Toni Lavis, Big Nana,
CHERFUL, Cossomby, Shadow Minister, and many
many others to numerous to mention. As a matter
of fact - I can't think of anybody that I
really dislike.

BTW - harbouring negativity and negative feelings
is bad for your health.

Dearest Foxy,

What I was trying to explore was there question": could the rest of the world have left Australia alone ? Could the world, today, in 2018, have witnessed an 'inviolate' Australia, populated only by foragers, without being tempted to 'invade' it ?

And what would it have required for all countries in the world to refrain from doing so, at least since the 1750s ? At the time, the British were about to wrest solo its in India and Quebec from the French; one of the Wars of Succession (I forget which: Austrian ? Spanish ?) was about to erupt across much of Europe. So would it have been practicable for European (and later, other) powers to agree, along with a very liberal George III, future French leaders of opinion, Benjamin Franklin etc, (exercising my rights as a would-be novelist to bend realities out of shape) that a permanent naval armada should be set up to patrol all of Australia's coast-line, and be regularly services with provisions ? Would all powers have agreed ? Could the French and Spanish, not to mention the Dutch - even back then - have been persuaded not to ever venture onto the Australian mainland ? And later, the Russians ? And the Americans ? And later still, the Japanese ? Then the Chinese ? Perhaps later again, the Indians ? And God knows who else into the unknown future ?

Could international diplomacy have successfully brought this about ? Would treasuries 'back home' have agreed to keep funding such a venture ? For 260 years ? And from now into the future ?

And -to take Burke's fictional point- would it have been eventually more beneficial than otherwise for the outside world to make close contacts with the Indigenous people here, and bring the benefits (and drawbacks - nothing's perfect) of outside civilisation to Australia ?

I do believe that, until we resolve these questions, we will be forever agonising over what should have been done, and condemned to the pointlessness of blame for past, and irredeemable, history ?

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Your questions as to whether Australia could have
been "left alone," by the continents of Europe
does border on fantasy - because in world
history the reality was that the colonial encirclement
of the world was an integral component of European history.
This process shaped Europe itself as the following link
of European history online - explains:

http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/backgrounds/colonialism-and-imperialism

However, authors do indulge in fantasies - and if you
want to make certain statements and points regarding
Australia's settlement in the form of a novel - by all
means don't let anyone deter you. Perhaps you could
include which Aboriginal customs were similar to some
European customs of the past that you know of and are
Aboriginal legends very different from the stories of the
Bible? It would be interesting to see the similarities and
differences that you may have noticed.

It would also help if in your novel you could cover how the
tragic misunderstandings and hatreds between blacks and whites
in Australia's past be resolved? If you were Prime Minister
what would you do to this end?

Foxy,

I'm not interested in a list of posters you like. Liking or disliking is more appropriate to Facebook and other juvenile social media. I don't like or dislike other posters because they don't exist outside text on OLO. They are not real to me. They are opinions. I commented on the the posters/opinions you attach yourself to instead of openly declaring your Leftist attitudes for yourself. You pretend that you are the a voice of reason and moderation, ‘ever-so-nice’ and ladylike, well-behaved, but you are a hard Left ideologue who doesn't want to 'talk tough’, so you attach yourself to posters who bellow absurdities for you. For your online self, that is. The real you is probably not as irritating.

Dear Foxy,

Fantasy only up to a point, an imagining of some hypothetical meeting of key philosophers and future political leaders in a Swiss ski chalet, snowed in for months. From then on, realities.

As you point out - and this is what I've been struggling with for years -it's obvious that an outside invasion or settlement of Australia was inevitable. Philip only beat the French La Perouse by a few days. Within four years of initial British settlement, the Spanish had 'visited' Sydney with the intention of later invading and enslaving the colonists, and presumably occupying all of the country.

If 'trade' between Timorese and Javanese (a.k.a. Macassans) and Aboriginal groups on the north coast had blossomed, perhaps the Dutch may have got interested in colonising those parts of Australia, perhaps bringing in Javanese etc. labour, and displacing local Aboriginal groups. What the Japanese might have done doesn't bear thinking about.

Certainly, Foxy, if eighteenth-century Brits had had 21st-century mind-sets, perhaps some Aboriginal stories could have been incorporated into Australia culture and school curricula. Oh, wait a minute .... they are now. But speaking of mind-sets, Aboriginal people then had 60,000-year-old mind-sets, and the Brits did have 18th-century mind-=sets. Those were the realities. Neither side understood the other's mind-sets, as we now know with the wonderful benefits of hindsight.

So the next question is: can the current Aboriginal narrative ever be modified to incorporate the inevitability of outside occupation ?

A corollary of that question is even more difficult: was that 'contact' ultimately beneficial or mainly destructive ? In other words, would Aboriginal people, especially their leaders, prefer to be now sitting around a fire, contemplating their next day of hunting or seed-gathering ? As they had to do every single day for 60,000 years ?

Or are they currently more preoccupied with that pesky problem with the air-conditioning or the dimmer ? And whether or not to trade in their Audi for a Merc ? And what to have tonight, Bombay or Lebanese ? Or whether their kid should try law or medicine next year ?

Love,

Joe

Dear ttbn,

I don't like attaching labels to people because I
find that most people's views are not set in
concrete and whilst they may be conservative in
some areas they can be quite liberal in others. So
narrow labelling is usually not appropriate in most
circumstances.

You were the one who raised the topic of my liking Steele,
and I merely responded by
giving you a list of others that I also liked on
this forum. It was appropriate to do so.

The people that I admire on this forum are ones
that can debate issues in a logical manner. I find that
sound reasoning conquers unreasonable generalisations every
time.

In any case - as far as politics go? I don't belong to any
particular Party. I used to be a Liberal voter for decades.
My family still is. However, I now
prefer to go for policies that will benefit me and
my family. I don't vote for parties but policies. Although
I have to admit that I'm still drawn to the Liberal Party
in many areas.

Thank You for sharing your views on what you think of me.
It is rather disappointing of course. And inaccurate.
However, that's something over which I have no control.

I've been raised to always try to be civil, well mannered,
and not to hurt anyone intentionally.

Of course - I realise that there
will always be people that I will meet along life's
journey who will try to tear me down for one reason or another.
People who are intolerant, insecure, and see the world in
very rigid and stereotyped terms.

These are people whose views
will not change - and therefore are best avoided. Although
that's not always easy on a public forum such as this one.

My advice to you is - if what I post upsets you so greatly
don't read what I write. You're under no obligation to
do so. And, I will not remove your name from the list of people
that I like.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

It certainly would be interesting to time travel and see how
Australia would have developed under different
colonial powers. Under the Spanish, Dutch and others - and
whether the Indigenous People would have been treated any
differently. Would the contact have been beneficial or
destructive.

As for the narrative today? I don't think that the Indigenous
People are very concerned about trading their Audi for a Merc
as you suggest (amongst other things). I think their narrative
is more along the lines of - "Will the Whites always have
the final say?"

My dear Foxy,

Well, i didn't mean 'ordinary' Indigenous people, more their leaders. The leaders seem to prefer BMWs actually.

I'm always uneasy with fantasy: hypotheticals, okay, but fantasy, no. I haven't even seen any Harry Potter of Lord of the Rings movies, and have no interest in doing so.. Or Star Trek, etc.

What I was trying to peel down to was

(1) whether or not the invasion/settlement of Australia was inevitable, and

(2) whether, on balance, it was beneficial.

I'll hate myself in the morning, but I can't escape concluding that the answer to both questions, on the basis of my limited knowledge of mainly SA records and experience, is "Yes".

Wow, there go a few more friends from my remaining supply :(

But i hope you will still be my friend :)

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thank You for clarifying things further for me.

And you need not be concerned.

I shall always be your friend.

Well, when are you leaving your old man for greener pastures in exciting Adelaide ?

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm not sure about the situation in SA but from my limited reading it was pretty bleak. What happened in Victoria to the estimate 15,000 to 20,000 Aboriginals after the invasion/settlement, having been already decimated by diseases from the north, was that they were reduced to less than 200 within 40 to 50 years.

For you to then say they were better off really is denial of what turned out to be a holocaust and pretty pathetic.

That is of course unless you meant "better off dead".

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thank You for the offer (and compliment).

But -

I love my husband, my family, and Melbourne.

Now back to the topic...

Have you really not read any of - J.R.R. Tolkien's work -
"The Hobbit," or "Lord of The Rings?" I find that hard to
believe. Fantasy is an ongoing part of our common human
experience. We all dream. What about -
the Harry Potter series? or Star Trek?

You've missed several irisistible elements - unflappable
friendships, the triumph of good over evil, love over hate,
humour, a world steeped in secrets and dazzling magic and
special effects. An escape from the mundane and the ordinary.

Anyway, I wish you success with your work.

Dear Foxy,

He's a lucky man !

I was raised in Bankstown, so I don't have much interest in unreality or magic. Reality is fascinating, challenging and exciting enough. Yes, I have dreams but if they don't come to Adelaide, what can i do ? Love always

Hi Steele,

If you use greatly inflated pre-invasion figures, and greatly deflated post-invasion figures, yes, sure, it looks pretty bleak, as you say. But going by SA figures over the years from 1836, I simply don't believe yours. Not to mention all of the factors that inevitably affected those figures, one way or the other. Keep learning, mate, you'll get there.

Still, the fundamental question that we have barely examined is: was invasion/settlement inevitable ? Could it have been forestalled ? Could Australia today, in 2018, be occupied only by foragers ? Would the rest of the world have left it alone ? And could Indigenous leaders do without their air-conditioning and BMWs ?

Joe

Why, O why, do only aboriginals deserve to be left alone?

Aborigines cannot be 'left alone' because they are totally dependent on other people's money, and our pathetic political class couldn't face down the condemnation of the UN and the 'global community' as they died out in even greater misery than that now live - on our dollar.

//would it have been eventually more beneficial than otherwise for the outside world to make close contacts with the Indigenous people here, and bring the benefits (and drawbacks - nothing's perfect) of outside civilisation to Australia ?//

If the gift of modern western civilisation is of such profound benefit, is it unethical to not seek to bestow this gift upon the Sentinelese people and drag them kicking, screaming and shooting arrows at us into the 21st century? Discuss, and remember to show all working.

It certainly would be interesting to time travel and see how
Australia would have developed under different
colonial powers.
Foxy,
No need to wonder, the evidence is at your doorstep, PNG & West Papua. You couldn't wish for a better example.

Hi Toni,

Very likely. Of course, other countries have tried to quarantine foraging groups from the outside world (and vice versa), notably Brazil. This raises the question that, as our own technology and civilisation becomes rapidly more sophisticated while those of the 'protected' foraging people remains more or less unchanged (well, that's the idea), then any eventual entry of those people into the outside world will be that much more disruptive, difficult and devastating.

Obviously, no matter when it would have happened, contact with the outside world was going to be devastating for many people. As I wrote in my first post here, I have agonised over this for years, probably decades. Hence my second query about whether or not such contact was/would be, on balance, beneficial. These are very difficult issues - and eventually they will be difficult and devastating for the Andamanese on Sentinel Island. Will they curse the outside world for (a) forcing contact when it happens, or (b) not forcing contact earlier ?

So was imperialist contact, here and in New Zealand and the US etc., the Great Historical Crime (which could have been avoided), or was it the Great Historical Gift ?

Joe

It’s always disconcerting to have a look at a thread you never even knew existed and see that you’ve already rated a mention. I suppose I should take that as a compliment, in this instance.

ttbn,

If I’m at the extreme-left end of the political spectrum, then where are you going to place socialists, communists, apologists for radical Islam, or radical environmentalists? Your hyperbole has left you with no room on your skewed perception of the political spectrum for any of them. I guess when one is as far to the right as you are, everyone else is going to look like a bunch of pinkos:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4706#48677

Oh, and, by the way, just so we’re all clear: I was the one who broke it off, despite what a certain other person might try to tell you.

But the level of attention you appear to have paid to such details, and the fact that you could feel that it ever rates a mention, suggests that you’re not as disinterested in what others say or do around here as you try to make out. In fact, it sounds to me like you and my auntie Mavis would have a grand old time gossiping over some tea and scones.

Dear Joe,

Just a small question.

You stated that you were referring earlier to Aboriginal
leaders, not ordinary Aboriginals,
when you mentioned that they preferred (amongst
other things) to trade in their Audi cars for Mercs.
And them you added that in actual fact they preferred
BMWs. Can you name some of them for us, the leaders
that you're referring to, - and give us some
evidence of those facts. I know that as you are a firm
believer in evidence - you'd be only too happy to provide
us with some - right?

cont'd ...

I've been told that all officials in high positions are
given a choice of vehicles when they serve in positions
of authority. This has nothing to do with race. It goes
with the job.

Just saying.

Dearest Foxy,

I've also been dedicated to a level of self-preservation and to keeping out of court.

But I have to point out that I meant personal, private, means of transport, not just the free Toyotas.

Love,

Joe

Can you name some of them for us, the leaders
that you're referring to, - and give us some
evidence of those facts

Foxy,
Easy, just go & spend time in their communities. You will find that the Labor-compliant non-indigenous bureaudroids & the consultants they engage do do their work for them at outrageous cost are doing quite well also. It'll show you where your tax dollars are really devalued.

To Loudmouth.

That sounds like a good environment for rich stories of an alternative earth. If the world had left Australia alone. Though to me it sounds like the scope of the project would need to develop the world as it grew. Which would lead to an alternative history from one point of history onwards.

With that in mind, here's a few thoughts I hope help. If Australia was discovered but otherwise left alone by the rest of the world, what would interactions with the rest of the world look like throughout history that still kept Australia from being colonized. (Or at least successfully colonized). If Australian leaders got trade from the rest of the world would it be like the Native Americans who were lesser tribes in their strength until horses were traded to Native Americans, then some tribes became known and fierce. Or if moving past the era of indigenous tribes that they are discovered as, would the leaders of Australia strive to grow in pace with the world? Have the industrial revolution take place without being colonized. Or after having been introduced to complex navel ships, strive to have their own and explore or trade on their terms?

(Continued)

(Continued)

Or even great events in history that seem to swallow much of the world in it's wake as WWI and WWII did. Would Australia keep it's distance, offer trades to one side or the other, or actively get involved as much of the world did, due to treaties in WWI placed countries on one side or the other side. Or get swept in the war against an aggressive world conquering Nazi Germany, (or try to make peace with them before being conquered).

No matter how much you would tinker with history to make the environment both modern and still preserve Australia's independence from conquering nations, there would be some creative changes in the way things are now. I think there are other books that are based on a "what if" scenario that changes one event in history. Like how the world would be today if Germany won WWII. Or also a would history teacher I knew wove a question throughout many of his classes, what if China instead of Europe first developed the Industrial revolution. (On the basis that both regions were similar enough that either could have found it first).

If your wanting to write your book, then go ahead and make the efforts you deem are needed to write it. Time might be the biggest investment but research as well as world building and story development might be big spots to invest into before writing. Either way, good luck.

Foxy, not sure if you are questioning the existence of wealthy aboriginal people or just their private choice of car but let me reassure you, there are many aboriginal people with incomes higher than you or I would ever earn.
Consultants to government, husbands and wives both in government jobs, both with government cars, kids in private schools etc.
Directors and managers of aboriginal organisations like Health Services who are receiving over $100,000/annually. Hell, I have a niece who is getting $70,000 for a job she’s not even qualified to do.
Then there are those who own and run businesses, large and small. Quite a few of them in the north, including my youngest son, who has a small roof plumbing business and employs half a dozen men.
And according to the latest census, over 30% of aboriginal people either own their own home outright or have a mortgage. That implies a decent income.
Finally, let’s look at royalties. Some aboriginal people in remote areas get large payouts annually, on top of Centrelink payments. I think it was about ten years ago Groote Island in the Gulfof Carpentaria was listed in the top ten Australian postcodes for annual income. This was because, in spite of being on Centrelink for most of the year, each adult received over $100,000 annually in royalty payments.
So, whilst we are bombarded with confronting pictures of people living in third world conditions, that’s not always related to income and even when it is, it’s only a small percentage of the aboriginal population as a whole.

Dear Individual, Not Now Soon, and - Big Nana,

Thank You so much for your thoughts.

This discussion is becoming so interesting and it's
giving me so much food for thought. Also it's making
me realise just how little I know about the topic.
Big Nana, you as always steer us to different perspectives
and make us think. Thank You.

Not Now Soon - I love
your mentioning - doing more research, and the thought
of China and the industrial revolution.

And Individual,
you're right - I don't know much about Aboriginal
communities - and the lives they lead. Possibly many
of us really don't. So the more we learn the better
we shall understand the reasons behind that sort of
behaviour.

I do wish Joe (Loudmouth) success in his endeavours.
He has quite a job ahead of him if he's going to continue
to write his book. Research is only part of the job
ahead of him. Most importantly - I think the difficult
part would be (for any author) - to try to see things not
just through a white man's eyes - but try to see things
from an Aboriginal perspective - on how good was the
colonisation of their land and country for them.

cont'd ...

And I'm talking about the Indigenous People as a whole -
not the percentage of successful elites. Which I imagine
is not that large a number of the overall Aboriginal
population.

On this precise Topic ladies & gentlemen, I'll base my opinion on the Sergeant SHULTZ defence if I may. "...I know nothh-iing..."!

Foxy, very few people know exactly what life is like in aboriginal communities, which is why people like Jacinta Price should be listened to.
The reality of aboriginal life is that just like non aboriginal people you have several different groups and lifestyles, the only difference being that one group still retains some of their Stone Age customs, something other cultures generally dispensed with hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
For the average urban aboriginal person, they have been raised in a totally European style culture with access to all the same services as the rest of the citizens. Some, with darker skin may have experienced racism but certainly no more than any other minority ethnic group, and of course a great number are indistinguishable from Europeans, so would not have experienced any racism.
And certainly they have been better off than migrants who have fled to this country with nothing but the clothes on their backs, no English, no family here, no culture here, nothing familiar. The Vietnamese come to mind.
As for what life would have been like for those initially overtaken by another culture, well, all you have to do is read books about being a Briton in the days of Roman conquest of England, where a more advanced culture invaded and disposed the local inhabitants. England also was invaded by Vikings and Normans so the Brits have plenty of experience of being the loser in a battle for land ownership.

Dear Big Nana,

Thank You.

If you don't mind I am going to copy the post you've just given
me for future reference. It is excellent. It brings up
so many good points. Again - Thank You.

Hi Big Nana,

Indigenous home ownership or purchase rates have gone up to 38 % of all Indigenous households (in the last Census). Bearing in mind that people can't buy their homes on most Indigenous closed communities, this suggests that maybe 40-45 % of those who can, are.
buying their own homes.

My 'novel': it sort of fell at that first hurdle, that it was idiotic to imagine that Australia would have been left alone forever. Seven million square kilometres ? God knows what minerals ? No imperialist worth the name would have let it go. Even if the British Navy had deployed a thousand ships around the coast forever, plus another thousand to replenish them, it wouldn't have been difficult for the French or the Dutch or the Spanish to launch a concentrated naval assault on any point on the coast-line and pick off any British ship who came near them, one by one. After all, until Morse code and radio, ships had to within sight of reach other for any messages to be relayed from one ship to another.

And why should the British do that anyway ? Or any other power ? They were all too busy fighting wars all over Europe and trying to pick off each others' colonies. Would the British Treasury or even more so, the public) have supported the costs of a huge permanent fleet of ships, being all altruistic for no financial return ? Hardly.

So the awful truth, let's face it, is: the invasion/settlement of Australia was inevitable. The devastation wrought due to the mutual complete misunderstanding between Indigenous people and the British which was to last, in many parts, until today (and probably for another century) was therefore bound to happen. The intrusion/introduction of Western society, economy and culture was bound to happen - the good, the bad and the indifferent.

We live life forwards, but look at history backwards (Kierkegaard ?). What has been done can't be un-done. So hat to do about it all ?

[TBC]

[continued]

But what was probably also inevitable was the positive response - ultimately, especially after the War - of many Indigenous people to the opportunities of a new society, as you point out, Big Nana. Just as an aside, according to federal Education Department figures, more than 120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand) Indigenous people have enrolled at universities since 1990. Another 120,000 will enrol by 2030. Indigenous people may have started behind the non-Indigenous working class (by twenty-odd years?) but they've already caught up. Now for the middle-class :)

Devastation, yes. Opportunities, yes. That's called 'life'. People can make choices now, which they couldn't, not just for 150 or so years after the invasion/settlement, but for 60,000 years before that. The opportunities are there now. As someone very dear to me remarked, "Yes, just add the miracle ingredient: effort."

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Things are beginning to make sense.

I'm finally starting to get it.

Dear Joe,

«according to federal Education Department figures, more than 120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand) Indigenous people have enrolled at universities since 1990. Another 120,000 will enrol by 2030.»

Sadly they capitulated, understanding that they cannot have reasonable living standards without undergoing full Western brainwashing in the white-man's universities.

But haven't we all capitulated to the pressures of Western society?
Aren't we all its devastated victims just the same?
Leading a meaningless life just in order to make ends meet?
Why then should aboriginals be given special privileges?
Don't we all deserve to be free and left alone?

Hi Yuyutsu,

Why "sadly" ? Indigenous people have every right to access the modern world and to seize every opportunity that other Australians take for granted. Why do people think that Indigenous people in closed-off 'communities have some sort of idyllic life ? Especially the women and children, most people - MOST people - have ghastly lives, short lives, lives plagued with violence, abuse, ill-health and a sense of utter futility and pointlessness. And by default, 'raise' their kids to do the same all over again.

Of course, there are exceptions, of course many people, including men, strive every day to do the very best they can for their kids, as best they know how. But policy and the Indigenous industry seem determined to keep them in their place. The Industry is determined to keep as many Indigenous people as possible in a dependent state, illiterate, innumerate, unable to take up even the most elementary opportunities, in its idiotic striving to bring about Apartheid - of course by different names, and which they're barely aware of - a population which they can control.

But in the cities, many, many people do seize opportunities. Te=hey strive to make sure the their kids get a decent education, up to university level. And they are the people who will prevail, who will fight against the place which so many of us so easily assume is for them, right and natural against the 'racism of low expectations' which pervades so much of all of our attitudes and expectations for our Indigenous brothers and sisters.

Genuine reconciliation will come about, but there's a long way to go yet. We're all in this society, forever, and all of us have equal rights to seize every opportunity.

Joe

Yuyutsu, I’m wondering what meaningful life you think aboriginal people lived before white settlement.
As Joe says, life was very hard, full of uncertainty about food and water supply. Infanticade was practised on a wide scale to keep the population down and women free to gather food for men.
There were no pain relievers for injuries, rotten teeth or illness, no antibiotics for infections.
No insect repellent to protect them from the hordes of mosquitoes and sand flies that plague so many areas of this country try. And when you are old and frail, waiting in dread for the day your daughter leads you away into the bush, with a few days supply of food and water, to abandon you there whilst you wait to die.
Frankly I cannot imagine trying to sleep on a hot humid piece of dirt constantly bitten by mosquitoes, in pain from injuries inflected by my husband or his number one wife, worrying about whether we would find any food the next day.
Working 9-5in an airconditioned office seems pretty good to me after imagining that.

Dear Joe,

"Sadly", because they become trapped in the Western lifestyle, whereby they are indeed materially better off, but spiritually poor.

It is true that people in closed-off communities often fail to have an idyllic life, or as you noted, even a good life - but at least the possibility exists (with appropriate effort), whereas once trapped in cities and all the temptations that come with it, it is more difficult to escape: indeed the incidence of "ghastly lives, short lives, lives plagued with violence, abuse, ill-health" is much reduced in cities, but "sense of utter futility and pointlessness" increases - universities offer no cure for it.

While there is no denial that aboriginals had quite a few problems of their own, white-man has done them a disservice by inviting them to its own spiritually-empty lifestyle. Now that they mostly integrated, both people are equally deserving of pity.

Your final statement is so pessimistic: "We're all in this society, forever, and all of us have equal rights to seize every opportunity."

- What about the opportunity to escape this society and be left alone?
Now, if your claim is correct, then it is equally unavailable to both white and aboriginal.

Dear Nana,

Yes, what you mention is true: life for aboriginal people was indeed uncomfortable. Now they have (or are in the process of acquiring) the comforts of the white man, but at what price?

Suppose you had, as you described, an inconsistent food and water supply, no pain relievers, rotten teeth, no antibiotics, no insect repellent and were sleeping on a hot humid piece of dirt constantly bitten by mosquitoes, etc. and the devil offered you to sell your soul for the opportunity of working 9-5 in an air-conditioned office: would you accept his offer?

Yes, the flesh is weak so most of us would be tempted, but then regret it bitterly in the long run.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I think you may have shot yourself in the foot with your attempted rebuttal of what Big Nana wrote :)

The noted anthropologist W. E. H. Scanner wrote, after fifty-odd years of work in the North, that he had never met an Aboriginal person who, once they had experienced the ration system and other aspects of Western life, had gone back out into the desert.

People make choices, and thank God that goes for Aboriginal people. Stay in your cave if you like but don't expect anybody else to do the same.

Cheers,

Joe

Yuyutsu, how did aboriginal people sell their soul?
Indigenous spiritual beliefs and modern technology are not mutually exclusive.
Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. all manage to juggle their beliefs with modern day life, why can’t aboriginal people do the same?

Dear Joe,

I do not mourn the aboriginal people for the life that most of them had, but rather for the life they could have had (and that a few of them may have actually had). They made a choice to become westerners because that's the easy choice down the garden-path and turning back is now more difficult for them.

---

Dear Nana,

«Indigenous spiritual beliefs and modern technology are not mutually exclusive.»

The temptations that come with modern technology compete over our time and attention. When people (indigenous or otherwise) used to do monotonous work that did not require the mind much, their span of attention was great and they could dream, meditate or pray as they worked or walked, but now the entertainment industry cannot keep a frame for more than 5-6 seconds, otherwise people consider it boring.

«Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. all manage to juggle their beliefs with modern day life, why can’t aboriginal people do the same?»

It's not about belief - it's about practice and the problem is that we don't manage to live spiritually as our attention is drawn away by all the beeps and gadgets. This afflicts "whites" and whitened-aboriginals alike.

Yuyutsu,

"They made a choice to become westerners because that's the easy choice .... "

Bloody oath they did, that is their right. Yes, indeed: choice. Like you've done. You make your choices, other people make their. No doubt they could all slag yours, no trouble, as you do theirs so airily.

Of course, like Italian-Australians or Tongan-Australians or any other hyphenated-Australians, they will inevitably retain what they like of other cultural or relational knowledge AND remain Australians.

I was talking to an Australian woman friend yesterday who was quite proud of her Scottish heritage. That what we are: a hell of a mixture AND Australians. All here together, forever. We can all walk and chew at the same time.

Joe

Yuyutsu, I hate to burst your bubble but I spent years living in a remote community with tribal people, in a place where no technology existed apart from one short band radio for the Flying Doctor Service. Mail came on a truck once a week if the road was open. No radio, tv or newspapers.
The local people still spoke langauge, still practised their ceremonies and did a little bit of hunting for fun, not survival, because they bought their food at the store.
So, did these people, undistracted by technology or the need to work to survive, spend time in contemplation of the wonders of the universe ?
Unfortunately no, they actually spent every available moment playing cards! Games would run round the clock, whilst kids looked after themselves and the babies. Even when there was no money left, people would play for matchsticks, or pebbles or bush berries.
The only breaks in this routine was pay day, and the game started later those days, and if there was a major fight going on, in which case people either went to observe or participate, depending on their relationship to the people involved in the fight.
And of course, law season saw an end of everything for three weeks a year. No cards,
no fights, no grog.
I loved law season, best three weeks of the year

I have to point out that I most certainly think that invasion/settlement was devastating for Indigenous societies. But the inconvenient implication of the inevitability of that invasion or settlement is that devastation was going to occur. Indigenous society, economy and cosmology were (and are) so fundamentally different from those of the invaders/settlers that, if that initial event was inevitable, so was the devastation that it was going to inflict on Indigenous societies.

I suspect that people like Philip and Macquarie (yes, yes, Appin) tried in their rudimentary ways to alleviate that inevitable clash of paradigms. But, going by the later history of South Australia, even an effective ration system on its own - and the recognition that Indigenous people had the rights to use the land as they always had done - would have split Indigenous societies. It would have immediately liberated women in particular from the all-day drudgery of food-collecting, replacing the hard-won grass seeds with a daily issue of already-ground flour: almost instant damper.

That liberation probably had massive effects on the role of men as well. Setting up the first school anywhere in South Australia specifically for Kaurna kids, in their own language, with meals and, if they wished, accommodation, would have also loosened the glue which bound their society together. Not to mention the sudden - relatively massive and all-encompassing - influences of the 'new world' ways, particularly grog.

But so many Indigenous people

[TBC]

[continued]

seemed, even in the earlier days, to come through all that. At least in SA, they tended to be people who were less tightly bound to traditional society, foundlings raised by the outsiders, or who worked around a homestead or farm or station from an early age - in other words, who grew up as familiar with that outside world as they were with traditional society, if not more so, people who could walk in both types of society. My wife's gr-grandfather worked as a kid for a local farmer (and adopted his surname) and later took out a lease of land, around 1870, barely thirty years after the invasion/settlement of SA, and always worked at what we would call standard jobs until he died. Come to think of it, so did at least three of her other gr-grandfathers.

What is significant is that those four men would now have hundreds of descendants who are university graduates: people who have inherited a work ethic in a strikingly direct line, hard workers all the way down to the present.

So the next inconvenient question is: are many Indigenous people (including the 55,000 university graduates around the country) whose ancestors and parents have come through the past 230 years of history living g comfortable, hard-working lives - and will most likely raise their own kids to do at least as well ? Are there rays of sunshine coming through the gloom of invasion ?

You know, when you marry into the Indigenous scene, you're in it for life. Hence the unnatural obsession :)

Joe

Did anyone watch the program - "Who Do You Think You Are?"
at 7.30pm on SBS last night (29/05/2018)?

Actor and entertainer Ernie Dingo, who's estranged from
his father, wanted to investigate his paternal ancestors.

It was quite a revelation. Especially the differences
between documented histories and word-of-mouth. And the
reasons behind them.

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, how could anybody NOT like Ernie Dingo ? One thing I learn from WDYTYA is how truth is certainly stranger than fiction, more convoluted, with more surprises. Fascinating ! Oral histories sometimes inherit and transmit fairly accurately, but so often they are very wide of the mark. How they change over time reflects the attitudes and beliefs of their time, of course.

I wonder what Foxy's WDYTYA could tell us :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Truth certainly was stranger than fiction in the Ernie
Dingo program. It made me want to meet the man in
person.

As for what WDYTYA could tell us about Foxy?

You'd learn that - she has very strong ethnic traditions
and a rich culture and speaks several languages
including one of the oldest in Europe. She comes from
people who are known for their music and singing, folklore,
forests, amber and basketball prowess. And that's just a
start. (smile).

Dear Foxy,

I'm sure your ancestors, buried over on the other side of the world, would be proud of you. I was just watching Justine Clarke's story on WDYTYA, on iView, and the surprises she experienced, involving bushrangers, double families, Jewish pogroms and Irish dissidents. Most of us probably have family histories that are not 'ordinary', like hers. And, I'll bet, like yours :)

Come to think of it, like every Aboriginal family I know too, battlers, people seizing opportunities, making the best of the cards that they were dealt.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

We all have our stories and I guess every one has obstacles
to overcome. They are our greatest teachers.
Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and a
greater part of me still wants to reach an even greater
understanding about who we are. My family reminds me each
day that miracles do happen, and they have shown me that
my heart can hold more love and joy than I ever dreamed
possible.

I've just come across this short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Az2C-c8zC0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Az2C-c8zC0

So any novel i could have written would already be old-hat. I suppose a lot of the discussion comes down to a proposition that Australia should never have been invaded even once, while so many others parts of the world have been invaded - try Syria - countless times. I'm trying to think of any part of the world that hasn't been invaded at least twice. North-Eastern Siberia perhaps ? Foreign armies have traipsed across pretty much every nook and cranny of Europe, the Middle East, India, south-east Asia, China, (from the little I know) Africa, and the Americas.

And of course, traditional societies themselves yes were dab hands at invading each others' territory. The pre-Republican Romans, the Greeks (Trojan War, anyone ?), the Scots, the Maoris, the Aztecs, the Ashanti, the Zulu, the Afghans, you name it. Invasion is the norm: being left alone is not only the exception, but either an extinct or a mythical species.

The next question that, sooner or later, we'll have to answer, is: on balance, Have Indigenous people here gained a net benefit from the contact with the outside world ? Perhaps the question is premature: in ten or twenty years, people may be answer it with a clearer head.

But Indigenous people have to ask themselves, honestly: would I prefer to die of various diseases or get vaccinated/treated, and survive for another twenty years ? Would I prefer to live around a campfire on these Winter mornings, or have clothing, blankets and air-conditioning ? Do I have to have six kids in case three die before twenty, and the others go off to marry into other groups, and I'm left under a bush at the old age of fifty, OR would I be happier on some sort of pension and free medical attention ?

Still agonising over that one.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions of our
Indigenous People?

Perhaps the questions we should be asking should
go along the lines of:

1) What if the Europeans had accepted the Indigenous
People as equals and did not try to convert them?

2) What if the Europeans did not think of themselves
as the "superior" race?

3) What if the Europeans were not convinced their ways
were better and did not try to teach them to be "like them?"

4) What if close friendships, co-operation, and coexistence
between the two was encouraged - for each other's sakes?

And the lists go on. But you get what I mean.

Perhaps - what needs to be looked at - is had Aboriginal
people been treated differently from the very start -
would their life today be any different?

Dearest Foxy,

Why do people think that the main thrust of conscious non-Indigenous policy towards Indigenous people was assimilation ? I really can't see much of that in the documentary record: laissez-faire, yes; obviously, an occupation of some of people's land and the imposition of some law; but on the whole, people were left alone, the invading authorities recognised their rights to use the land as they always had done.

In turn, it seems that many Aboriginal people realised quickly that they needed to get a handle on the new society and its SWOTs - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Many realised very early that, for this, their kids needed some basic education. Down here in progressive SA, before the missionary at Pt McLeay had even dug a well, people were camping nearby waiting for the school to open (a year later). In the first days of the missionary's appointment, long before the mission was actually set up, one Aboriginal bloke walked twenty-odd miles to ask him when the school would be ready, and whether young adults could attend. Within a year of opening, the missionary had to build a second dormitory for the rapidly-expanding school population, a huge effort for a one-man mission, busy with teaching, administering health care, building cottages, etc.

Of course, many people preferred to carry on the old ways, and they were free to do that: in fact, later, the Protector provided boats and guns so that they could keep hunting and fishing (I think seed-gathering had gone by the board very, very early).

So assimilation was not really ever on the agenda: in the mid-20th century, when some Aboriginal parents wanted their kids to come into the city to go to secondary school, the government here knocked that on the head. So by 1960, hardly any Aboriginal kids were in secondary education in SA. Hence the delay in enrolments in tertiary education later. Assimilation ? I don't think so.

Of course, the invasion was devastating, and it always would have been. So if the invasion was inevitable, then so was that devastation.

Love,

Joe