This discussion began simply as an exciting piece
of news about an Australian Indigenous site being
recognised by the World Heritage List. It broadened out
to a look at evidence presented to us by the
prize-winning author, Bruce Pascoe's book which put
forward a compelling argument for a reconsideration of
the hunter-gatherer label for pre-colonial Aboriginal
Australians.

The discussion became quite robust and interesting.
Unfortunately, it very soon began to slip into
personal attacks and denigrations - from people
who had not read the book - which had to be
answered and explained repeatedly.

This continued for quite a while with various personal
put-downs and attempts to silence.
It is time that this discussion ended and new topics
were introduced.

It's unfortunate that some individuals have to stoop to
such a low level of dragging the bar down in discussions.
The fortunate things is that on this forum such
behaviour does not get much support.
Most people choose to ignore.

I now consider this discussion terminated
and - Thank the individuals who have
positively contributed without malice and anger.

I look forward to further inter-action with them.

Before we all shut down this topic, I must remind people that the author herself asked, on the very first entry;
"YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE".
So instead of leaving this topic feeling as though we have done wrong as we are being told, again the author has to be told and corrected.
She gave her permission, there were no caveats, to engage in any particular form.
We all were most compliant and did as invited or asked to do and gave our thoughts.
So I might again give the author more advise (once more, as if she'll listen hah) next time she puts up a topic, please do tell us how to respond and even what to say, so we won't hurt her tender sensitivities and sensibilities, and not allow her to stubbornly drag us through a quagmire of flawed beliefs and attitudes.

Altrav,

I have to disagree with you about Stan: I consider him a courageous thinker, struggling to reconcile the usual stereotypes about how Aboriginal people are supposed to be and behave and aspire, with what he knows individuals - including Aboriginal individuals - can achieve. In that sense, his enemies are as often on the 'Left' as on the Right.

But I do agree with you on Helen Razer. Looking back at those comments, It's struck me that 'discussions' or arguments develop in a predictable way:

- people set out their preferred position;

- then criticise and attack the positions of others;

- then fiercely and indignantly defend their positions from those evil adversaries;

- then they move into insults and invective, such as "Kiss my hairy arse", that sort of disgusting comment.

Usually, by that time, they have either lost patience or more likely, the argument.

The Swiss child psychologist Piaget proposed that the mentality, the way that people perceive reality, develops from:

- Pre-Operational thinking, guesswork and simple assertions which are obvious to the child, that of three-to-six-or-eight-year-olds, more or less, to

- Concrete-Operational thinking of seven-to-twelve-to ninety nine-year-olds, in which people can conceive of examples but can't/don't formulate principles, i.e. they can't/don't go from the concrete to the abstract, or from the specific to the general in which

- Formal-Operational thinking is common, by which people can extend what they observe or hear about or are told, to draw out 'lessons' or guidelines or principles, in order to appreciate a deeper, more theoretical understanding of experience and learning.

On OLO, as people's assertions come under threat, they often seem to retreat from an 'adult' way of thinking and arguing, to earlier levels of thinking - earlier and earlier, as their illusions are stripped away. Hence they resort, eventually, to the most primitive-brain level of a six-year-old, insults. An alternative, less confrontational, is to retire in a huff, above the undignified fray; and usually come back after a spell in the naughty corner.

Anybody can take all that as they like.

Joe

Loudmouth,

well articulated, as usual.
I must confess, I cannot give you a reason for my comments on Stan, I think I shall have to go back and re-acquaint myself with the article in question.
In my defense, I can only assume, for the moment, that something he said or related to him or his opinion, did not sit well with me.
Either by description or by action, so I must have come away disgruntled or in dis-agreement.
I will confess to you that I, (and OLO'ens will attest to the fact) do not subscribe to the notion that if your parents are not BOTH of aboriginal ancestry, then you are not an aborigine, you are a half caste.
And so it goes on down the line, ie; half caste, quarter caste, eight caste, etc, etc.
I am vindicated by the Governor General of the day who stated, as in the constitution, anyone born of one parent being aboriginal and the other is not, are deemed to be a half caste, and will not be recognised as an aborigine.
I have always attacked anything resembling a lie or misrepresentations including, in particular those I call, "wannabees" who claim to be aborigine or relate to being aborigine.
These people I will NEVER accept as such.
Genetically and biologically speaking, we cannot call ourselves something we are not and expect to be taken seriously.
An aborigine can only be so if they are of pure blood, so anything else is not pure, and can even be classed as 'contaminated'.
I describe it this way; If I take a large vessel of pure un-adulterated rain water.
We then get an eye dropper with excrement in it, and drop just one drop in the vessel of pure water, it can no longer be called pure water, because now it is contaminated and has changed form, even if only very little, but it is no longer what it was.
And so it is with these wannabees, "like Stan Grant", and all the others.
They argue with conviction, that they are aborigine, not according to nature.

Hi Altrav,

That's your definition, but it certainly isn't how many 'southern' Aboriginal people honestly see themselves: after all, for their entire lives, they have been regarded as not non-Aboriginal. They have been perceived, since birth, as Aboriginal, whatever that might mean in a different world from 'up north'. Their siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts, grandparents, are all, as they perceive it, Aboriginal. They may not know - at least the generations born before, say, 1980 - any of their non-Aboriginal relations, since, after all, much of the mixing took place very long ago, and the non-Aboriginal progenitor most likely shot through, or didn't even know that he had any Aboriginal offspring.

So the only world of reference for most southern Aboriginal people over the age of, say, forty or fifty, is what they perceive to be an Aboriginal one. Not a world of dance and dot-paintings, or ritual, or even any firm knowledge (or even awareness) of where their clan's country might be - or even any awareness of 'clan' - although one may be able to trace their original clans by their adopted European-style surnames.

Of course, that's all changing very fast, with very high rates of inter-marriage, mainly in the cities. To that extent, that sense of Aboriginality may becoming more stretched and diffuse. Conversely of course, more non-Aboriginal people are ready without reservation to acknowledge their Aboriginal relations. As far as I am concerned, this is far more good than bad.

Yes, there seems to be a major resurgence, or reclamation, of some of the decorative trimmings of Aboriginal culture, such as painting oneself, burning of gum leaves, welcome to country, and other possibly-innovative borrowings from what people imagine is genuine Aboriginal culture borrowed from 'up north' (and from further afield) - ironically, on the assumption that all Aboriginal culture is the same across Australia, and even across the entire world amongst Indigenous people. Hopefully, people are going through a learning (and un-learning) phase, like many other Australians.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

as you can imagine, I have heard the points you make, and many more, from aborigines and/or their advocates.
I might ask your patience and flexibility on this one.
As much as I admire you and your vast knowledge on aborigines and their culture.
I ask that you ignore me for my stance on this matter.
Over many years and coming from a foreign culture myself, I have developed a conclusion about the structure of different blood lines and what their true titles are.
Even yourself and others, including the aborigines themselves are not convinced of their true identity, once they interbreed.
The point I highlight to make my point is your use of the word 'percieved', on several occasions.
We can perceive something, but perception is not the same as actual, or reality.
So it is that I have heard many reasons as to why an eight caste calls himself an aborigine.
I'm sorry Joe, these words and attitudes are like a red flag to bull in my case.
I will not allow someones personal 'perception', influence what is in essence the facts/truth.
These same people use words like 'identify'.
Again I don't care who or what they identify with, they are NOT aborigine.
I place them in the same category as these idiots who are born one sex but then insisting they 'identify' or want to be 'perceived' as the opposite sex, I think they are called 'transvestites'. (if their vests are so tight, it is affecting their brain, I would suggest loosening it)