Aboriginals.

wallywhittle

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

You need a tougher skin.

No you just have double standards.

GalwayGuitar

wallywhittle wrote: »

No you just have double standards.

Snitching/physical violence is not necessary over a fairly harmless term.

Macavity.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yeah it is. It's designed to be. If you were living outside that little bubble of Middle class ireland and called mick or paddy you'd get pissed. If you don't think you would you are an idiot.

Funny that. When you mentioned it I asked two family members who immigrated to the UK when they were younger (they're back in Ireland a long time now) would they find the term offensive, and I was greeted with just a smiling dismissal of the idea. I suppose they are idiots though, right? Not being offended makes you an idiot now, even if you have lived outside of the "Irish middle class" bubble. :rolleyes:

You will also find that "Paddy" is used quite frequently on global forums nowadays between Irish people, eg. "Fellow Paddy here..." etc etc. I understand that in a certain context where you were the minority it could be said in an offensive or perhaps hateful manner, but to imply it's exclusively an offensive term is just stupid.

COYVB

Aboriginals are not just Australian

Eugene Norman

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

You need a tougher skin.

Lol. This has nothing to do with my being tough. It's a general discussion on offensive terms.

But if you do meet me I'm an ex rugby player so you call me by name.

Interesting how little irish peope know if their own history these days. The term paddy and mick was always derogatory.

GalwayGuitar

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Lol. This has nothing to do with my being tough. It's a general discussion on offensive terms.

But if you do meet me I'm an ex rugby player so you call me by name.

Interesting how little irish peope know if their own history these days. The term paddy and mick was always derogatory.

Calm down paddy.

COYVB

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Lif you do meet me I'm an ex rugby player so you call me by name

BECAUSE you're an ex rugby player is it? I played rugby in school. There were plenty of scawny lads on the team...

Tombi!

Lads, careful now with the bickering. It's getting into petty remarks.

Eugene Norman

Macavity. wrote: »

Funny that. When you mentioned it I asked two family members who immigrated to the UK when they were younger (they're back in Ireland a long time now) would they find the term offensive, and I was greeted with just a smiling dismissal of the idea. I suppose they are idiots though, right? Not being offended makes you an idiot now, even if you have lived outside of the "Irish middle class" bubble. :rolleyes:

You will also find that "Paddy" is used quite frequently on global forums nowadays between Irish people, eg. "Fellow Paddy here..." etc etc. I understand that in a certain context where you were the minority it could be said in an offensive or perhaps hateful manner, but to imply it's exclusively an offensive term is just stupid.

Yes. Irish people use it. I said that.

Nice anecdote but certainly not the reality of the experience of most irish people in England historically. If you are called paddy it's clearly an insult. I mean its up to you how you take that. I wouldn't. But then it never happened to me over there. It was frequent enough in the past to not call irish people by their given names.

wallywhittle

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Calm down paddy.

Racist thug.

bb1234567

Eugene Norman wrote: »

But. It. Is.

You might be confused with the Irish reclaiming of the word. If somebody I didn't know called me paddy in London two things would have happened.

1) outside work I would have clocked him ( unless he was too big of course. I'm not stupid).
2) if he was a deliberate prick in work I would probably report him and it would be seen as racist.

Aa would taffy, jock, yank or anything else. Use people's names

Historically in England the term was always derogatory.

( I can live with it in sporting contexts but that's all. )

If somebody called me a paddy at work in London and I tried to report him Im pretty sure Id get laughed at...

G_R

wallywhittle, don't post in this thread again please - you're not contributing anything to the discussion, and you've been warned already. If you've got a problem with a post in future, report it.

emo72

Can we go back to the interesting history and development of the Aboriginal people of Australia discussion which the history nerds had earlier. That was really informative.

Don't fancy the "I'm an ex rugger bugger, and I swear I'll deck ya if you call me paddy again" discussion, although this has its charms too.

smurgen

emo72 wrote: »

Can we go back to the interesting history and development of the Aboriginal people of Australia discussion which the history nerds had earlier. That was really informative.

Don't fancy the "I'm an ex rugger bugger, and I swear I'll deck ya if you call me paddy again" discussion, although this has its charms too.

I'd like to find out more too. Also some people here saying they have primitive under developed skills, I was kind of shocked by that because I remember a ray mears documentary on aboriginal bush skills that was mind blowing.
If I was aboriginal I'd feel proud to be from sone of the first modern humans .there's something almost ancient about them.maybe I have an overly romantic view of it.I just really see them as being quiet different.

-=al=-

smurgen wrote: »

I'd like to find out more too. Also some people here saying they have primitive under developed skills, I was kind of shocked by that because I remember a ray mears documentary on aboriginal bush skills that was mind blowing.
If I was aboriginal I'd feel proud to be from sone of the first modern humans .there's something almost ancient about them.maybe I have an overly romantic view of it.I just really see them as being quiet different.

They are built different to us and built to live in the bush! There is a great culture and their bush skills are unbelievable. I worked landscaping with a great aboriginal guy and I honestly never saw him drinking water except on lunch!

I asked what he does when he's working in over 40c in the sun and he said he just puts the head down an gets on with it

con___manx1

I once found a small aboriginal girl no more than 4 years old abandoned by a deep river. Crying her eyes out. It was in the outback in a tiny village in NSW .I brought her to the cop shop which had 1 police officer on duty.

KomradeBishop

Hard to watch this and not then think that Australia's historical and present treatment of Aborigine's, is hideous and racist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_EQGOsz7Oo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_EQGOsz7Oo
(YouTube download link - not sure if it will stay working)

jank

They are certainly very interesting who have developed some remarkable survival skills. They come from a vastly different perspective on things though. Land is almost the be all and end all. Their story is very important also to them. Anytime an Aboriginal who was since died is shown on TV there is a parental guide warning. They have a different way of thinking which is quite apparent when you hear them speak on matters of importance.

I think as a people they still have not gone over the shock of being dragged into the modern world. I remember in Perth seeing a group of them wandering the CBD. Here we were, in a modern western city with skyscrapers etc. and a people who less than 200 years ago would have been living a pre-neolithic existence. A bit of juxtaposition. My lasting memory of that group were the way their stares were just aimless into space as if they were lost souls wandering a different planet. They were not aggressive nor appeared to be under the influence of any substance but you could almost visibly see their hurt, bewilderment and confusion. I have seen plenty of aboriginals before and after but this group seemed different, I will never forget it.

The best comparison I could make would be to take a bunch of Westerners and drop them on a planet that humans have lived on but they are now 20,000 years more advanced then we are now. Such a thing would be catastrophic to the body and the psychology of the mind. In some ways its no wonder so many of them drink their lives away. Its very sad but there are no easy solutions.

jank

About the youtube video above, I would caution people who watch John Pilgers work. He forms a very one sided and blatantly biased view point. Someone has to be blamed and that blame MUST reside with white Australia, even though white Australia does not exist anymore. 1/4 of the population was born overseas for example.

For example their low life expediency rate is more to do with their bad diet and substance abuse not because of any premeditated plan by evil Australians to cleanse them. One cannot expect to live a semi-nomadic lifestyle in the outback yet have western levels of life expectancy. In the cities substance abuse is a huge issue. Authoritarian measures have been tried before but what can the state actually do, ban people from buying drink? Some aboriginal communities have done this with some success. "Grog free zones" where people who want to drink are kicked out. These people then become the problem of the government authorities. This is them running their own affairs which I think is the way to go. Having a big nanny state dictating terms has caused more damage then good. Lots of blame in his videos but very little real solutions.

StewartGriffin

smurgen wrote: »

If I was aboriginal I'd feel proud to be from sone of the first modern humans .there's something almost ancient about them.maybe I have an overly romantic view of it.I just really see them as being quiet different.

Interesting point about the romantic view, I think that applies to a lot of the older tribes that were victims of invaders atrocities. Incas, Native Americans, Achill Islanders.

I watched a doc about the Buffalo recently and the Native American's were saying they had a great spiritual connection with the creatures, and when the Buffalo died, the soul of their nation wept. Then it showed how they regularly stampeded thousands of them over particular cliffs, they pretty much lived off the Buffalo, food, clothing, everything they could get out of them.

Didn't have an interview with a Buffalo saying how much they loved the Native Americans.

I bet they fcking hated the sight of them.

Cookie_Monster

CruelCoin wrote: »

New Zealanders cherish the Maori and fall over themselves to claim some Maori ancestry. .

course they do, free / subsidiesed everything if you can find a bit of maori in you

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

course they do, free / subsidiesed everything if you can find a bit of maori in you

...o jesus no.....

jank

Nodin wrote: »

...o jesus no.....

Again, its popular to mock and belittle especially when you are devoid of the facts but the truth can be inconvenient sometimes. Aboriginals do get many extra perks and benefits that the rest do not. One can avail of these even afaik if you are 1/8 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Its not about skin colour. In fact it has been known that people would now rather identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait islander as to get greater and easier access to healthcare, housing and benefits. I personally know of one case myself of someone who deosn't look at all aboriginal or would be disadvantaged by the fact.

Just this past week my OH got a letter in the post asking her for the guts of $1800 to complete her registration fee for a course she is finishing up. If you qualify as aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander you are exempt for any TAFE fee, ever....
http://oten.tafensw.edu.au/enrolling/fees-and-financial-assistance/concessions-and-exemptions/



That is just one example. It is a clear case of positive race discrimination. Now ideologically I do have a problem with this but I do understand why its there so I am not going to go off an big rant about it. Well meaning and all it is there is very little evidence to show that its working. I also just think there are better ways to help rather then easy blunt instruments (throw money at it, legislate division) popular with some of the left.

They do get other allowances e.g. abstudy and subsided housing. Not all mind. Some are just working away as per normal like the rest of us but unfortunately there are too few in this position.

The problem with this debate is attitudes like yours who will scoff at notions that are actually quite true. The debate should be centered are these programs and extra help, helping or hindering. What is working and what is not. Throwing more money at the problem doesn't seem to help and will only gain resentment from the taxpayer who has to foot the bill. Sure we all know the Irish and the travelling community are best of friends right?

Personally I think granting them more autonomy and liberalising how they can run their lands and community is the way to go. Let them decide how they want to live and not lecture them. Let them forge their own path.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess I'd have to answer your question with a question: How many abodiginals do you see modelling?

Is beauty an objective concept now?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm wondering if it's really true that they are a bit intellectually challenged, then is it racist to acknowledge this truth?

You'd have to understand what intellectually challenged and it's cause means before making any pronouncements.

To begin with you need to define intelligence and that's not as easy as you might think. I score very high on a number of cognitive tests, but low on others; so does that make me intelligent? Dumb? Likewise Australian Aborigines will score low in some areas, but high in others - on average, they have fare superior long term memory to your average Caucasoid, for example.

Secondly, there's the question of environment. Poor diet, education and so on in the formative years of a child can make a serious impact on adult intelligence. As such you can't claim someone intellectually challenged on the basis of genetic background if their limitations are a result of nurture rather than nature.

Finally, claiming any group is intellectually challenged is ultimately a statistical claim. This will inevitably mean that not all will be intellectually challenged and even that intellectually challenged average will still likely be smarter than the left hand side of the IQ bell curve of the group they're compared to.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

course they do, free / subsidiesed everything if you can find a bit of maori in you

All the makings of a cheesy chat-up line...

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

- on average, they have fare superior long term memory to your average Caucasoid, for example.
.

Probably from dwelling over the horrible stuff that was done to them. Do you have a link for this by the way, I never heard of it before.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Probably from dwelling over the horrible stuff that was done to them.

More likely due to a lack of writing in their culture.

Do you have a link for this by the way, I never heard of it before.

Googling it now, it appears that there's disagreement on whether this is the case, so I'm going to semi-retract the claim. However, it's touched on in the following:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028581900177
https://books.google.ch/books?id=A5Tj227rAhoC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=aboriginal+superior+memory&source=bl&ots=hSq_xRHNyi&sig=nA0bCUndVO4OSXXWOTVey9NpGh4&hl=de&sa=X&ei=vz3sVKjZPMGuU8OvgdAF&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20superior%20memory&f=false
https://books.google.ch/books?id=1m13-c6QuS8C&pg=PA2035&lpg=PA2035&dq=aboriginal+superior+memory&source=bl&ots=8-ZXqRS_5K&sig=otOnz0CvCPi-MKdcEgpfF9ag0Qc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=IT7sVNTmFcv9UseSg-AK&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20superior%20memory&f=false

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

More likely due to a lack of writing in their culture.

Googling it now, it appears that there's disagreement on whether this is the case, so I'm going to semi-retract the claim. However, it's touched on in the following:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028581900177
https://books.google.ch/books?id=A5Tj227rAhoC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=aboriginal+superior+memory&source=bl&ots=hSq_xRHNyi&sig=nA0bCUndVO4OSXXWOTVey9NpGh4&hl=de&sa=X&ei=vz3sVKjZPMGuU8OvgdAF&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20superior%20memory&f=false
https://books.google.ch/books?id=1m13-c6QuS8C&pg=PA2035&lpg=PA2035&dq=aboriginal+superior+memory&source=bl&ots=8-ZXqRS_5K&sig=otOnz0CvCPi-MKdcEgpfF9ag0Qc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=IT7sVNTmFcv9UseSg-AK&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20superior%20memory&f=false

I was being facetious about the reason behind it. I've browsed a few articles that as you said, disagree on it. Some say they have better visual spatial memories as a result of their desert living but others say that can develop in any child brought up in that environment. They did have an oral history going back thousands of years though and I've also heard they could even point out areas that used to be heavily vegetated stretching back over a millennium.

KomradeBishop

jank wrote: »

About the youtube video above, I would caution people who watch John Pilgers work. He forms a very one sided and blatantly biased view point. Someone has to be blamed and that blame MUST reside with white Australia, even though white Australia does not exist anymore. 1/4 of the population was born overseas for example.

For example their low life expediency rate is more to do with their bad diet and substance abuse not because of any premeditated plan by evil Australians to cleanse them. One cannot expect to live a semi-nomadic lifestyle in the outback yet have western levels of life expectancy. In the cities substance abuse is a huge issue. Authoritarian measures have been tried before but what can the state actually do, ban people from buying drink? Some aboriginal communities have done this with some success. "Grog free zones" where people who want to drink are kicked out. These people then become the problem of the government authorities. This is them running their own affairs which I think is the way to go. Having a big nanny state dictating terms has caused more damage then good. Lots of blame in his videos but very little real solutions.

Yes because you've watched the whole 2 hour long video, in the ~30 or so minutes since I posted it, in-between posts...

John Pilger is one of the best investigative journalists around, and is well known for providing a very raw/unflinching account of whatever he is covering, and for not mincing his words in any way.
He reflexively pisses off largely conservative/right-wing folk, who claim 'bias' to smear him, without actually backing that up with anything - largely because they don't like the damning conclusions of his very raw reporting.

People can watch that documentary and make up their own minds, whether there is still present-day state-sanctioned racism towards Aborigine's; there is so much in that documentary, it's hard to actually keep track of all the abuses towards Aborgine's, but taking just one recent example - literally stealing newborn babies from their mothers, through eugenics-like 'assimilation' policies:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/once-again-australia-is-stealing-its-indigenous-children

Australia is a fúcked up country, with a dark history - with a lot of racist policies still living on in the present.

Darkglasses

I know we might be getting off-course, but being called a Taig in NI might be a better comparison than being called a Mick or a Paddy in Dublin. Obviously unacceptable in civilized conversation.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm wondering if it's really true that they are a bit intellectually challenged, then is it racist to acknowledge this truth?

It depends entirely on how you define such terms and then where you go from there. As The Corinthian points out they have much higher scores in memory, especially visual memory compared to other populations. Lack of a written history and the need to survive in a harsh environment likely brought that to the fore. Adaptation is like water, it will fill the shape f the vessel it's put in. In their case that vessel was a non literate harsh environment. Though there are more forms of literate than writing. Art for example and in that they're quite sophisticated. Oh and by the by I would have no issue with different populations having or requiring different cognitive skills(as an average) depending on environment and genetic heritage. Some populations are tall, some are short, some are dark, some are light etc. I don't see why local adaptations magically stop at the neck, but that's not exactly an area of study many would admit to even looking at for obvious reasons.

katemarch wrote: »

Ancient Australian culture is one of the most complex and fascinating to study, and some of their language.

Interestingly Native Aussies has/had the most languages in one country albeit a huge one of any world population. Many of them are language families unrelated to each other which is fascinating. Maybe came along with different migrations over time?

smurgen wrote: »

I'd like to find out more too. Also some people here saying they have primitive under developed skills, I was kind of shocked by that because I remember a ray mears documentary on aboriginal bush skills that was mind blowing.

Oh they are incredibly skilful as far as bushcraft goes. There is no doubt about that. Then again Neandertals survived and thrived over Eurasia from the tundra to near desert in shifting climates for 300,000 years. Their bushcraft was off the scale and unlike modern humans including the Native Aussies they didn't kill off other species while doing it. They made wooden tools, the first "biscuits", the first compound glue and a few other things. However cognitively they were clearly different to us modern humans(well humans after circa 50,000 years ago). They had little or no "art", they may have painted their bodies and worn jewellery, but the jury is still out on much of that. Magnificent survivors that they were, they just couldn't compete with modern humans. I am NOT saying Native Australians are like Neandertals, they are clearly fully modern humans like any human population today, but when the environment changes, whether that be climactic or cultural some skillsets are not enough to compete with the new order and if you can't adapt you will tend to go extinct, or get "bred out"(for a short period it seems the Neandertals tried to adapt to the new humans and mimicked their jewellery and tools, but it wasn't enough). By the by, If they were around today I would consider Neandertals to be equally human to us. Just a little different. In one way I'm glad they're not as the abuse of many native populations has shown it's never good to be the invaded.

If I was aboriginal I'd feel proud to be from sone of the first modern humans

Ditto. I'm very proud of my Neandertal DNA.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I watched a doc about the Buffalo recently and the Native American's were saying they had a great spiritual connection with the creatures, and when the Buffalo died, the soul of their nation wept. Then it showed how they regularly stampeded thousands of them over particular cliffs, they pretty much lived off the Buffalo, food, clothing, everything they could get out of them.

Didn't have an interview with a Buffalo saying how much they loved the Native Americans.

I bet they fcking hated the sight of them.

Yep. Just like the Maori killed off a load of species within a hundred years of showing up in New Zealand. The Easter islanders buggered their entire island. In these islands we killed off the bear, wolf and beaver to name but three. The European lion, rhino, auroch and a load of others were killed off by Europeans. Hell we squeezed our older human cousins out. That's a very common thread in modern humans. Where ever we went extinctions followed in our wake. You can damn near time our arrival somewhere by the timing of extinctions. Pretty much every "native" and non native human population has caused such extinctions. This idea of the innocent native at one with nature is an 18th century romantic crock.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Finally, claiming any group is intellectually challenged is ultimately a statistical claim. This will inevitably mean that not all will be intellectually challenged and even that intellectually challenged average will still likely be smarter than the left hand side of the IQ bell curve of the group they're compared to.

+1

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Australia is a fúcked up country, with a dark history - with a lot of racist policies still living on in the present.

Back in the day(1950's) my oulfella lived in Australia and had stayed in the old South Africa and a few other places with dubious attitudes to the original "locals" and he reckoned that Australia was among the very worst in this regard. Never mind the Native folks, the country operated a white only immigration policy until pretty recently in its history so that's the angle the culture was coming from. Black fellas in the bush were another species to White Australia and treated accordingly.

jmayo

weirdspider wrote: »

It's not about how large the country is. It's about the fact that they don't wish to pollute the population with immigrants. No country is obliged to let immigrants in and if you presume it's prerequisite then you are deluded.

Yeah a nation of immgrants are complinaing about more immigrants.
A bit like those minutemen in the States complaining about Mexicans coming to their country, when their own ancestors were often the cast offs of Europe.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Wonder is the rise in the clear racism here because so many irish people going to Australia?

Nah a fair chunk of the Aussies were racists long before.
Italian immigrants experienced it when they arrived.
Irish were treated poorly by some of the Quees/Kings lickspittles.

In fact the irony is the Irish are now experiencing some racism against them.
Maybe some Irish want to blend in and thus want to show they share some locals' opinion of the real natives.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Interesting point about the romantic view, I think that applies to a lot of the older tribes that were victims of invaders atrocities. Incas, Native Americans, Achill Islanders.

I watched a doc about the Buffalo recently and the Native American's were saying they had a great spiritual connection with the creatures, and when the Buffalo died, the soul of their nation wept. Then it showed how they regularly stampeded thousands of them over particular cliffs, they pretty much lived off the Buffalo, food, clothing, everything they could get out of them.

Didn't have an interview with a Buffalo saying how much they loved the Native Americans.

I bet they fcking hated the sight of them.

Ehh they didn't wholesale slaughter them for their hides.
They were more ecologically friendly towards them and hunted what they needed.

IamNotNumber

This Kate Bush the dreaming is about aboriginals and the white man dangling devils in a bottle. It was originally called the 'abo song' before they realised that was a racial slur and also Rolf harris:eek:plays the digerydoo on this track.
One of my favourite Kate Bush songs.

'Erase the race that claim the place
And say we dig for ore or dangle devils in a bottle
And push them from the pull of the bush'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Wa0LdCsvM

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes because you've watched the whole 2 hour long video, in the ~30 or so minutes since I posted it, in-between posts...

Why would you think that. I saw that documentary when it was aired about a year ago on SBS here in Australia. Oh, sorry do I need to watch it again to change my mind? I even referenced John Pilger yesterday in this very thread, perhaps read over it...

KomradeBishop wrote: »

John Pilger is one of the best investigative journalists around, and is well known for providing a very raw/unflinching account of whatever he is covering, and for not mincing his words in any way.
He reflexively pisses off largely conservative/right-wing folk, who claim 'bias' to smear him, without actually backing that up with anything - largely because they don't like the damning conclusions of his very raw reporting.

People can watch that documentary and make up their own minds, whether there is still present-day state-sanctioned racism towards Aborigine's; there is so much in that documentary, it's hard to actually keep track of all the abuses towards Aborgine's, but taking just one recent example - literally stealing newborn babies from their mothers, through eugenics-like 'assimilation' policies:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/once-again-australia-is-stealing-its-indigenous-children


Australia is a fúcked up country, with a dark history - with a lot of racist policies still living on in the present.

A few things. If you want to see his lack of objectivity than watch his interview techniques with those he disagrees with and those that share his view point. He does not question the latter at all but does strenuously question those that he disagrees with. Aboriginal people who are not the perpetual downtrodden victims are ignored as it does not suit the narrative. For a journalist he is definitely not balanced. People can make up their own mind on that for sure.

There are factual issues as well. One would be the mining tax revenue mentioned. He mentions $60B that could have been raised but in fact the mining tax was abandoned not as some affront to the aboriginal community but because it raised no where the amount that was proposed, where in fact it cost more to collect than it actually raised!

It is interesting you posted that link. First of all there is nothing about a policy of 'assimilation' that is happening today mentioned, in fact most of the babies taken into care are with aboriginal carers. The aboriginal community are not singled out in this regard. The same link states that 1/3 of babies taken into care are from aboriginal the other 2/3 are not. Of course it doesn't mention WHY these babies are taken into care in the first place. Do you think a baby should stay with a mother who can't even look after her own welfare due to substance abuse? Do you think its OK to let children stay in abusive homes (sexual and physical) and no one intervenes? Is that fair for the child?

See I think you have just proved my point. John Pilger takes one fact, twists it and turns it on its head, adds some Nazi references with a dollop of history and guilt. Then the narrative is "OMG, they are taking the Aboriginal babies away again like they did 40 years ago, this must stop, Australia is EVIL!!" etc, etc..

If you have taken more attention to my posts I actually mention this very issue, where the state are very careful when it comes to the intervention of children in Aboriginal families due to its history and to prevent mass hysteria that people like you and John Pilger engage in. For the record taking a child away by force should be the very very last resort that the state should engage in but if often has no choice. Do I need to remind you that only a few months ago a Torres Strait Islander mother who was mentally ill at the time killed all her children, 8 of them..... dammed if they do, dammed if they don't...

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/cairns-mum-arrested-over-murder/story-e6frfku9-1227162650773

This started a bit of a national conversation regarding when and at what lengths should the state step in to protect children and have they been too lasize fare lately with Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginals. Again a much more nuanced problem than mass hysteria that sells for journalism these days.

Lastly, I cannot take you seriously when you engage in the lowest common denominator type of argument. As if watching a documentary is a fair reflection of a country and its society. Do you think if one watched "The Magdalene Sisters","Philomena" or any documentary that details the abuse in Irish institutions would it be a fair reflection of modern Ireland. Can you name me a country that does NOT have some darkness in its history and by that measure is NOT ****ed up. See you give yourself away with this remark. Instead of trying to engage in debate you just throw out the "Australia is a fúcked up country" gem.

And everyone notice, not one solution, not one problem solved, not one outlook of a better future, not one bit of positivity that this sad state of affairs could be turned around. Very typical really. Negativity heaped on more negativity. Blame and more blame.. in summary, Australia is bad m'kay!

jank

Wibbs wrote: »

Back in the day(1950's) my oulfella lived in Australia and had stayed in the old South Africa and a few other places with dubious attitudes to the original "locals" and he reckoned that Australia was among the very worst in this regard. Never mind the Native folks, the country operated a white only immigration policy until pretty recently in its history so that's the angle the culture was coming from. Black fellas in the bush were another species to White Australia and treated accordingly.

While this was obviously true the reason behind this policy was primarily due to the labour market. Australians did not want Asians primarily coming to Australia to compete for the same jobs they did. In fact it was the Australian Labour Party (the centre left party of the day) that passed this law with full support of the Unions of the day and the party that did away with it, the Liberals (the centre right party) much to the delight of big business as it would reduce wages...
Even today this difference still exists, with the Liberals relaxing visa rules allowing businesses to rort the system contrasted with Labour in government when they tightened up the rules, restricting immigration somewhat.

There was of course a racist undertone to the white Australia policy but much of it was economic in origin and initial support.

KomradeBishop

That's not a lack of objectivity: That's creating a documentary focusing on the wrongs committed on the Aborigine's...

Objectivity is not the same, as providing equal airing time to both sides arguments - that is the 'Balance Fallacy', and it is specifically not objective.

The mining tax was abandoned, so of course it raised nowhere near the proposed amount...that's not a factual error, that undercut expected tax intake because it was abandoned.


Given that Aborigine's make up 3% of the Australian population, them consisting of one third of babies taken into care is enormous; that article also points out specific claims about babies being taken into care, how parents are lied to as their children are taken from them, and even get taken from parents at birth in some cases; ridiculous that you try to defend this.
If you want to suggest that these children are being reared in sexually abusive Aborigine homes, then you're bordering very close to having a racist view there...(and you're accusing Pilger of hyperbole...)

Worth stating again: 3% of the population - Aborigines - making up 33% of cases of children being taken away from parents, by the state; and you portray this as a 'laissez fare' stance from the government...


We're not talking about history here, like the Magdalene laundries - we're talking about present day Australia. If you want solutions, well they're pretty simple: End the institutionalized racism in Australia.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not a lack of objectivity: That's creating a documentary focusing on the wrongs committed on the Aborigine's...

Objectivity is not the same, as providing equal airing time to both sides arguments - that is the 'Balance Fallacy', and it is specifically not objective.

That's not what the balance fallacy means.

Allowing the full facts, or even just a right of reply, in an argument is not the same as presenting both arguments as equally valid. That's up to the viewer to decide. Actively suppressing facts that do not agree with your intended conclusion is bias. Otherwise you might as well claim that The Eternal Jew was an objective film.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Again, its popular (........) their own path.

Using my groan at dragging moaning about maoris into it as a segue to a little go at subsidies for native Australians while saying "Wrong Again Nod!" - 6/10 for effort.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what the balance fallacy means.

Allowing the full facts, or even just a right of reply, in an argument is not the same as presenting both arguments as equally valid. That's up to the viewer to decide. Actively suppressing facts that do not agree with your intended conclusion is bias. Otherwise you might as well claim that The Eternal Jew was an objective film.

There as nothing showing Pilger suppressing facts - the criticism was him not being as questioning of Aborigine's as those he viewed as responsible for wronging them.

ComfortKid

kneemos wrote:

Mode note: the term "abo/abbo" is consider a slur against Aboriginals; stop using it.

How the F*** is "abbo" a slur? Is Aussie a slur too? A simple abbreviation

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There as nothing showing Pilger suppressing facts - the criticism was him not being as questioning of Aborigine's as those he viewed as responsible for wronging them.

Actually, I thought jank made a very good case that Pilger does precisely that.

However, that's got nothing to do with my pointing out that you incorrectly used the term balance fallacy.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I thought jank made a very good case that Pilger does precisely that.

However, that's got nothing to do with my pointing out that you incorrectly used the term balance fallacy.

You didn't show me using the balance fallacy incorrectly, you assumed I was applying it to a part of janks argument, that I wasn't applying it to.

creolebelle

IamNotNumber wrote: »

This Kate Bush the dreaming is about aboriginals and the white man dangling devils in a bottle. It was originally called the 'abo song' before they realised that was a racial slur and also Rolf harris:eek:plays the digerydoo on this track.
One of my favourite Kate Bush songs.

'Erase the race that claim the place
And say we dig for ore or dangle devils in a bottle
And push them from the pull of the bush'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Wa0LdCsvM

Had no idea that song was about aborigines

Yeah_Right

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh nope. The Maori were the first humans to colonise the islands of New Zealand. It was one of the very last decnt sized landmasses to be settled by people. Oh and it happened in the 13th century IIRC. So they were there only a few hundred years before whitey showed up and in the first hundred years had killed off a shedload of indigenous species, including all the Moa.

I'm impressed you know this! A lot of Kiwis still think the Maoris invaded and ate the Morioris, (this does appear to have happened on the Chatham Islands in the 1830s).

The Aborigines definitely got a raw deal when Australia was colonised. The Maoris definitely came through it all a lot better. I know a lot Australians and I've heard some horror stories about Aborigines (both things they've done and things done to them). Also heard some funny and entertaining ones. There are a lot of social problems there involving the Aborigines but how to fix it? I don't know.

bb1234567

Wibbs wrote: »

It depends entirely on how you define such terms and then where you go from there. As The Corinthian points out they have much higher scores in memory, especially visual memory compared to other populations. Lack of a written history and the need to survive in a harsh environment likely brought that to the fore. Adaptation is like water, it will fill the shape f the vessel it's put in. In their case that vessel was a non literate harsh environment. Though there are more forms of literate than writing. Art for example and in that they're quite sophisticated. Oh and by the by I would have no issue with different populations having or requiring different cognitive skills(as an average) depending on environment and genetic heritage. Some populations are tall, some are short, some are dark, some are light etc. I don't see why local adaptations magically stop at the neck, but that's not exactly an area of study many would admit to even looking at for obvious reasons.

Interestingly Native Aussies has/had the most languages in one country albeit a huge one of any world population. Many of them are language families unrelated to each other which is fascinating. Maybe came along with different migrations over time?

Oh they are incredibly skilful as far as bushcraft goes. There is no doubt about that. Then again Neandertals survived and thrived over Eurasia from the tundra to near desert in shifting climates for 300,000 years. Their bushcraft was off the scale and unlike modern humans including the Native Aussies they didn't kill off other species while doing it. They made wooden tools, the first "biscuits", the first compound glue and a few other things. However cognitively they were clearly different to us modern humans(well humans after circa 50,000 years ago). They had little or no "art", they may have painted their bodies and worn jewellery, but the jury is still out on much of that. Magnificent survivors that they were, they just couldn't compete with modern humans. I am NOT saying Native Australians are like Neandertals, they are clearly fully modern humans like any human population today, but when the environment changes, whether that be climactic or cultural some skillsets are not enough to compete with the new order and if you can't adapt you will tend to go extinct, or get "bred out"(for a short period it seems the Neandertals tried to adapt to the new humans and mimicked their jewellery and tools, but it wasn't enough). By the by, If they were around today I would consider Neandertals to be equally human to us. Just a little different. In one way I'm glad they're not as the abuse of many native populations has shown it's never good to be the invaded.

Ditto. I'm very proud of my Neandertal DNA.

Yep. Just like the Maori killed off a load of species within a hundred years of showing up in New Zealand. The Easter islanders buggered their entire island. In these islands we killed off the bear, wolf and beaver to name but three. The European lion, rhino, auroch and a load of others were killed off by Europeans. Hell we squeezed our older human cousins out. That's a very common thread in modern humans. Where ever we went extinctions followed in our wake. You can damn near time our arrival somewhere by the timing of extinctions. Pretty much every "native" and non native human population has caused such extinctions. This idea of the innocent native at one with nature is an 18th century romantic crock.

+1

Back in the day(1950's) my oulfella lived in Australia and had stayed in the old South Africa and a few other places with dubious attitudes to the original "locals" and he reckoned that Australia was among the very worst in this regard. Never mind the Native folks, the country operated a white only immigration policy until pretty recently in its history so that's the angle the culture was coming from. Black fellas in the bush were another species to White Australia and treated accordingly.

I love how people bang on about countries like ireland and australia being 'the most racist places ever omg' when certain ethnic and religious groups are literally being hunted down and executed in some countries (christians in syria for example..) , and in palestine and other middle eastern and african countries.
Yes Ireland and Australia have racist people but when compared to the rest of the world its a very good place to be an ethnic minority in.

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not a lack of objectivity: That's creating a documentary focusing on the wrongs committed on the Aborigine's...

Objectivity is not the same, as providing equal airing time to both sides arguments - that is the 'Balance Fallacy', and it is specifically not objective.

Priceless. Anytime one tries to argue a point against KB out comes the wikipedia article which purports his opponent engaging in some fallacy. Have you ever NOT done this? I wonder do you apply the same rules of these many fallacies to the sources he you put forward..? A classic way of avoiding to answer difficult questions, the bait and switch, the 3 card trick of debating.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The mining tax was abandoned, so of course it raised nowhere near the proposed amount...that's not a factual error, that undercut expected tax intake because it was abandoned.

It was never going to raise $60B, not even the ALP under Kevin Rudd claimed that this amount was going to be raised. He plucked that number from thin air or used a factually incorrect source, just to make a political point which aided the narrative and tone of the documentary. That is just one very small example which shows inaccuracies and bias in that documentary.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Given that Aborigine's make up 3% of the Australian population, them consisting of one third of babies taken into care is enormous; that article also points out specific claims about babies being taken into care, how parents are lied to as their children are taken from them, and even get taken from parents at birth in some cases; ridiculous that you try to defend this.
If you want to suggest that these children are being reared in sexually abusive Aborigine homes, then you're bordering very close to having a racist view there...(and you're accusing Pilger of hyperbole...)

Ah, the ol racist card has been thrown. Well done. It only took 3 posts. I guess I can claim a moral victory now. Anyway...

First of all you did not answer my question as to WHY these children were taken away from their Aboriginal mothers and parents. Again you fail to answer any pertinent questions relating to this matter. Is there a policy that the state will take away children just for laughs or to 'assimilate' them like there was in the 50's and 60's? Are we going to engage in bogey men conspiracies, drawing up false hysterical equivalences to the Nazi's and eugenics?

I cannot comment on all possible instances as I am sure there have been cases where they authorities were over zealous as I am sure even you concede that the authorities were absolutely correct in their action. However, that does not address the reasons as to WHY so many aboriginal children are in state care. To take one example, 20% of all reported cases of abuse recorded in Australia are from Aboriginals. As you said, they are 3% of the population, yet 20% of the reported abuse..... and remember, this from a community who has very little trust if at all towards state agencies or law enforcement. Most experts believe the figure to be far far higher.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/sex-abuse-reports-rise-among-indigenous-children/4843600

Many many aboriginals lack the ability to look after themselves due to substance abuse, mental issues and poverty. With the above figures in mind it is of course correct to assume that if children are so over represented in cases of abuse, then they will be over represented when taken into state care. I don't think you are seriously arguing that we should leave children in an environment where they are being willfully abused do you?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Worth stating again: 3% of the population - Aborigines - making up 33% of cases of children being taken away from parents, by the state; and you portray this as a 'laissez fare' stance from the government...

That shows that the state is not over zealous but the fact that so many aboriginals are on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder and that so many are unable to look after their own children or family. I think you would rather that no children be taken away and left in totally unsuitable conditions and totally unsuitable environments where substance abuse is ever present and physical violence and sexual abuse is rife. That may make YOU and John Pilger feel better about yourselves, but it does nothing to help the child in question.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're not talking about history here, like the Magdalene laundries - we're talking about present day Australia. If you want solutions, well they're pretty simple: End the institutionalized racism in Australia.

1) End racism
2) ... .... ...
3) Utopia

Yea, so simple. First of all I disagree with the statement that there is insitutionalised racism in present day Australia, certainly no more than any other country. For example, how do Irish travelers fare in Ireland? Are Roma embraced with open arms on the continent?

So we are back with the question about a solution. Even if I take your point on board and accept it (which I do not), How? What racist laws should be repealed in Australia, what laws should be passed. what can be done in a practical sense. Simple slogans like that show that you have no concept on the intricacies of the problem nor the multitudes of issues that surrounds them.

Although, on one hand you are giving out about the state intervening by taking away children from parents the state deems unfit and then you come out with simple back of the hankey slogans about simple solutions. So again, all you are doing is dividing people, perpetuating a negative narrative about blame and where actual solutions are a distant secondary objective and the blame game is the be all and end all.

fryup

Midnight oil's famous song beds are burning about aborigine rights....

The time has come
To say fair's fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share

The time has come
A fact's a fact
It belongs to them
Let's give it back

Wibbs

fryup wrote: »

The time has come
A fact's a fact
It belongs to them
Let's give it back

Only works in the minds of hippies though. A feel good slogan song to make them feel better, rather than actually accomplishing anything.

Wang King

Wibbs wrote: »

Only works in the minds of hippies though. A feel good slogan song to make them feel better, rather than actually accomplishing anything.

To give Peter Garrett his due, he did raise the issue of the treatment of indigenous peoples firstly thru his music, and later during his political career.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^

yes well meaning, but realistically 10 million white people are not going to pack their suitcases and up sticks

Yeah_Right

Wang King wrote: »

To give Peter Garrett his due, he did raise the issue of the treatment of indigenous peoples firstly thru his music, and later during his political career.

Most of my political beliefs would be at odds with Garrett's but I love the music. One of my favourite bands. Saw them live a couple of times. Also I did appreciate the fact they used their music to raise awareness of environmental issues etc.