Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Aboriginals.

1235712

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,003 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    -=al=- wrote: »
    The Japanese attacked Darwin and totally destroyed the place.

    They also attacked Sydney Harbour with mini subs and landed briefly in a remote part of Western Aus on a fact finding mission and then left. They could attack the place but they'd never be able to hold and occupy it.

    Getting back to the Aboriginals, they got a hell of a bum deal and white Aussies talk about them in pretty much the same way as most Irish would go on about Travellers. Think the Maori put it up to whitey far more effectively, despite being underequipped and outnumbered, they are a lot more warlike after all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,848 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    They seemed kinda cool in the Crocodile Dundee films.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    They also attacked Sydney Harbour with mini subs and landed briefly in a remote part of Western Aus on a fact finding mission and then left. They could attack the place but they'd never be able to hold and occupy it.

    Getting back to the Aboriginals, they got a hell of a bum deal and white Aussies talk about them in pretty much the same way as most Irish would go on about Travellers. Think the Maori put it up to whitey far more effectively, despite being underequipped and outnumbered, they are a lot more warlike after all.

    The Maori scared the absolute willies out of the colonials though because of the fact that they had eaten the previous occupants of the Islands when they arrived, soliders and sailors were afraid to engage Maori warriors for fair of being captured and served with fava beans and a nice chianti.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Central and parts of South America are interesting in that regard, but I do find it strange why similar didn't happen in North America. While they didn't have "industry" like Europe they had large settlements and all that jazz so why were they wiped out so easily?
    There's various theories why agriculture, and the developments it would have fostered, didn't develop in different places around the World, such as Australia, north America and much of sub-Saharan Africa.

    Climate is one theory, as is scarcity (or lack thereof), locally available plant and animal species that could be domesticated and so on have been mooted.

    In the case of north America one could also point to another possible reason; time - as human migration to the Americas only took place between 10 and 15 thousand years ago, so they had less time to do it in. Of course this does not explain why south America managed it even though humans were there for even less time than north America.

    Why some places, often independently, developed agriculture and others not has been subject of debate for quite a while.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,766 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    The Maori scared the absolute willies out of the colonials though because of the fact that they had eaten the previous occupants of the Islands when they arrived, soliders and sailors were afraid to engage Maori warriors for fair of being captured and served with fava beans and a nice chianti.

    Literally went medieval on their arses


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Central and parts of South America are interesting in that regard, but I do find it strange why similar didn't happen in North America. While they didn't have "industry" like Europe they had large settlements and all that jazz so why were they wiped out so easily?

    The short answer is milk and wheat.

    Basically mass agriculture and domestication of animals provided a stable, nutrient dense food source for people from Mesopotamia and Egypt outwards to China and Japan in the east and Western Europe and Scandinavia in the north meaning people in these regions didn't have to lead nomadic or semi-nomadic lives anymore and thus developed more advanced communities where knowledge and ideas could spread more easily, which impacted science and technology, which impacted agriculture and farming and so on, it was a kind of self feeding circle.

    The South American's domesticated some animals but they didn't have the yields that cattle did and the grains they harvested (well, pseudo grains in the Andean communities) din't have the output of wheat or barley so their communities developed a lot slower and in smaller groupings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,085 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Some interesting stuff in this thread.

    Being the victim of genocide is your own fault.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Some interesting stuff in this thread.

    Being the victim of genocide is your own fault.

    Boards (especially afterhours) has the single weirdest demographics I've ever encountered in an online community. Libertarianism is basically non-existant in Ireland, or Europe as a whole for the matter, but it's well represented on boards.
    There is a massive centre-right grouping here who basically see everything throught the lens of themselves being "productive" and everyone else being sponges. It's really bloody weird. Interesting in some way, but mostly weird.

    It actually makes no sense as generally more educated people tend to have left leaning ideologies and the majority of boards users seem to be educated to a decent standard but the right leaning bias is there for all to see, it is apparent in polls in politics and economics as well. Massive support for right wing policies and ideals which are not in line with support for the same in reality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    The short answer is milk and wheat.
    Nope. East Asia never really developed dairy farming, but it still developed agriculture, as did south America without wheat, so the answer is more complex than your simple answer.
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Being the victim of genocide is your own fault.
    No one has mentioned fault.
    There is a massive centre-right grouping here who basically see everything throught the lens of themselves being "productive" and everyone else being sponges. It's really bloody weird. Interesting in some way, but mostly weird.
    Be still my bleeding heart...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Nope. East Asia never really developed dairy farming, but it still developed agriculture, as did south America without wheat, so the answer is more complex than your simple answer.



    And East Asia and (especially) South America didn't develop as fast as the Middle East, The Mediterranean and Western Europe.
    The answer is accurate as any other explanation given so far, domestication of animals and mass agriculture provided stable nutrient dense food sources which lead to settled communities where knowledge and ideas could be shared and evolved. Whether it's wheat or rice, quinoa or soy or dairy is besides the point, the assessment is the same.
    Be still my bleeding heart...
    Erm... wha?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,085 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    No one has mentioned fault.

    That's the way I read those "sure they never developed any weapons" posts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Counter factual histories are largely bollocks, designed to be unfalsifiable. In this case its pretty easy. Britain wouldn't have been touched. France would barely have been touched. As for Germany and central Europe the 30 year wars destroyed 30% of the population of central Europe on, and the black death destroyed 30% of the European population beforehand. Europe recovered from both. Unless any of this could be proven to stop the discovery of America, or the scientific revolution it's just whistling in the wind.

    The plague wasn't confined to Europe - it had repercussions all over the Mediterranean. It had the same impact on the Middle East as Europe proportionally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    And East Asia and (especially) South America didn't develop as fast as the Middle East, The Mediterranean and Western Europe.
    Actually East Asia developed faster than Western Europe and south America only took longer because people only started getting there about ten thousand years ago.
    The answer is accurate as any other explanation given so far
    Actually, the most accurate answer is we don't actually know.
    Erm... wha?
    My response is to your diatribe about how people are so terribly right wing here and clearly that explains their misguided views.

    TBH, to read what has been posted and conclude that it all comes down to victim blaming, is little more than the emotional whimper of an illiterate who would be better off logging off and going back to watching daytime TV.

    From an anthropological point of view, and that's all that's been discussed, no one cares who's to blame, no more than you can blame an orca for eating a seal or the seal for getting too close to the water when there was an orca about. It's simply observation of cause and effect without the need to attach emotive agendas.
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    That's the way I read those "sure they never developed any weapons" posts.
    See above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Iranoutofideas


    KungPao wrote: »
    They taught Mick Dundee some neat tricks.

    A great bunch of lads, sound out they were. In the second one the Costa Rican drug dealers thought they could use them to track Mick. Course the lads told them to bugger off when they realised what they were up to.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭GalwayGuitar


    Got a smoke brahs? Ya fukin white Kunts.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The Maori scared the absolute willies out of the colonials though because of the fact that they had eaten the previous occupants of the Islands
    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.
    It actually makes no sense as generally more educated people tend to have left leaning ideologies and the majority of boards users seem to be educated to a decent standard but the right leaning bias is there for all to see
    Over the years I've met just as many highly educated and more, intelligent people, that were centre right, just as I've met as many stupid people that were "left leaning" and they were just as likely if not moreso to break out the feelz.
    Zebra3 wrote:
    That's the way I read those "sure they never developed any weapons" posts.
    It's got nada to do with "fault", another "left leaning" buzzword designed to crowd out general debate that they don't agree with. It's about the reasons why they got screwed over so royally. They never stood a chance against the more sophisticated in technology and culture invaders. They would have been in trouble faced with late paleolithic Eurasians, never mind people with ships and guns and steel.
    Actually, the most accurate answer is we don't actually know.
    Pretty much.
    From an anthropological point of view, and that's all that's been discussed, no one cares who's to blame, no more than you can blame an orca for eating a seal or the seal for getting too close to the water when there was an orca about. It's simply observation of cause and effect without the need to attach emotive agendas.
    +1

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,867 ✭✭✭Tonyandthewhale


    I've only met one aborigine, he was incredibly dull and a bit of a stoner but other than that fairly normal. It was pretty annoying that he didn't know how to make a bow and arrow though as someone pointed out earlier in the thread. University education and all but still lacking those basic skills.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Actually East Asia developed faster than Western Europe and south America only took longer because people only started getting there about ten thousand years ago.

    Actually, the most accurate answer is we don't actually know.

    My response is to your diatribe about how people are so terribly right wing here and clearly that explains their misguided views.

    TBH, to read what has been posted and conclude that it all comes down to victim blaming, is little more than the emotional whimper of an illiterate who would be better off logging off and going back to watching daytime TV.

    From an anthropological point of view, and that's all that's been discussed, no one cares who's to blame, no more than you can blame an orca for eating a seal or the seal for getting too close to the water when there was an orca about. It's simply observation of cause and effect without the need to attach emotive agendas.

    See above.


    South America has been inhabited by humans for AT LEAST 20,000 years (many sites in Uruguay and Brazil confirm this) and probably closer to 30,000 (Uruguayan sites), and it took a long, long time for them to develop settled communities.


    The accurate answer is agriculture (first) and domestication of animals (later), providing a stable food source, meant people stopped leading nomadic lives in the fertile crescent and it spread from there, actually.
    They don't call it cradle of civilization for no reason you know.

    I didn't say people were "terrible right wing here", I said there was a large grouping of centre-right on boards with strange views of the world and that libertarianism, dispute being pretty much non-existent in Ireland and wider Europe was "well represented".
    So maybe it's yourself who needs log off to go back to watching daytime TV (bit hard for me, it's nigh time where I am). Or shall you be whimpering another illiterate diatribe? before skulking back under your bridge?

    As for your last paragraph, I didn't appoint blame, I made an observation about boards being full of strange people with strange ideas and has extremely skewed demographics which bare no semblance with real world demographics. But sure, it's easier for you to just try and shoehorn something else in than understand what's actually being said.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭stevestevenson


    pmy.murphy wrote: »
    Their Australias version of the Travellers

    Key difference being though, that the Aboriginals are an indigenous group who had all they had taken from them by settlers (invaders), whereas Travellers have actually chosen their way of life, and with all the (usually self-imposed) problems that will inherently bring.

    But apart from that they're exactly the same :rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Perception can sway reality unfortunately. I live in an area of Sydney where my only interaction with Aboriginals are seeing them being verbally aggressive, having violent domestic bust ups on the street and being out of their heads on drink or drugs like crack or heroin.
    I am sure there are many who are grand, try very hard to have a normal life and the above does not represent them but the above does paint a bad picture for any new arrival who sees this up close. You can then understand why the stereotypes of them are still present.

    The treatment of them is often up for debate but the thing I never know or can understand is what do they actually want. They don't have a single unified voice to share their aims and goals. They have been very let down by their leaders. Some just want to be left alone and I am all for that but then again they want to have western style education and medical care, yet are also afraid that their culture will be diluted. How does that work and who pays for it? Some want to embrace modern Australia, some want us all to go away (you can't wish away 22 million people and wish it was still 10,000 BC) Its like they are lost, bewildered and don't know how to react. They live in this almost alien world even though many of them are born the same time as us. They are hamstrung by the past as its the only identity they have yet they have to leave some of it to move on. Its a delicate balancing act.

    Some of course jump on the bandwagon of the blame culture and perpetuate a narrative of white guilt (John Pillinger for example) which is mostly found by the way not in the aboriginal community but in the streets of inner city Sydney and Melbourne's student suburbs. This does more harm then good imo and deliberately highlights division and hatred rather then try and move beyond it and look for common core solutions.

    Some don't see any legitimacy in the government or the law which can lead to problems. I saw a poster a few weeks ago calling for members of the police of NSW to be murdered, as they were foreign occupiers. For 99.9% of Australians be they Irish, Chinese, Italian, Greek or whomever that is a shocking statement. Very hard to reconcile so many varied differences of opinions.

    The government do spend a lot of money on them though but results can be mixed depending on the area and the type of aboriginals. Subsidised housing, free education, extra benefit payments etc, while all well meaning are actually bad and only enable them into the vicious poverty cycle that many find themselves in. It also rubs up the average Australian slightly when they look at the figures and find that more money is spent on an Aboriginal child than their own, who may also be poor, working class and be disadvantaged as well.

    Some do brilliantly and do better at school then their white/asian Australians, others it's a disaster. Alcohol abuse as well as child abuse and domestic abuse is many many times greater then the norm. Child abuse within the community is a very very touchy subject, even mentioning it will get calls that you are a racist but the facts speak for themselves and the government are kinda hamstrung as they cannot really do anything due to the history of children being taken away from parents in the 60's. This is coming back to haunt them now.

    As I said, its not something that is going to be fixed anytime soon as its a very complicated issue that is much more nuanced that people realise.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 127 ✭✭Buzz Meeks


    People may be underestimating the shear time and effort that goes into playing didgeridoos, reading tracks in the bush and remaining in harmony with the great spirit.

    Aboriginals didn't have all day to sit around playing with bows and arrows


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The accurate answer is agriculture (first) and domestication of animals (later), providing a stable food source, meant people stopped leading nomadic lives in the fertile crescent and it spread from there, actually.
    They don't call it cradle of civilization for no reason you know.
    Gobekli Tepe in Turkey kinda hurts that theory a bit. A massive complex of standing stones and carvings and heavy duty cultural stuff that you'd expect to see in later agrarian civilisations, but with no evidence of domestication of either animals or plants going on. Built by hunter gatherers basically. And it's unlikely that it's the only example out there waiting to be discovered. In short you can't just claim "accuracy" because you've read the back of the cover of "Guns germs and steel". Human culture and history and how different cultures came to have different histories and outcomes is far more complex than that.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    South America has been inhabited by humans for AT LEAST 20,000 years (many sites in Uruguay and Brazil confirm this) and probably closer to 30,000 (Uruguayan sites), and it took a long, long time for them to develop settled communities.
    "The first evidence for the existence of the human race in South America dates back to about 9000 BC, when squashes, chili peppers and beans began to be cultivated for food in the highlands of the Amazon Basin. Pottery evidence further suggests that manioc, which remains a staple food today, was being cultivated as early as 2000 BC" Source.
    The accurate answer is agriculture (first) and domestication of animals (later), providing a stable food source, meant people stopped leading nomadic lives in the fertile crescent and it spread from there, actually.
    They don't call it cradle of civilization for no reason you know.
    Feel free to cite a credible source that confirms yours is the 'accurate' answer, as so far you've been coming out with a lot of inaccurate facts.
    I didn't say people were "terrible right wing here", I said there was a large grouping of centre-right on boards with strange views of the world and that libertarianism, dispute being pretty much non-existent in Ireland and wider Europe was "well represented".
    You're right "a large grouping of centre-right on boards with strange views of the world" is nothing like saying terribly right wing :rolleyes:
    As for your last paragraph, I didn't appoint blame
    I didn't say you did, although you were originally responding to someone who did so, so you'll forgive me if I believe you might share their view.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    dim_view wrote: »
    i guess its true what they say

    " how you class opinions politically depends on where you are standing yourself "

    i find the above post of be thee most inaccurate post ive ever read , boards.ie ( and after hours ) is for the the most part a liberal left love in

    I think people who think boards.ie or AH is very centre right has not had much exposure to the world or mixes in the same social group whereby their world view does not go unchallenged.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Gobekli Tepe in Turkey kinda hurts that theory a bit. A massive complex of standing stones and carvings and heavy duty cultural stuff that you'd expect to see in later agrarian civilisations, but with no evidence of domestication of either animals or plants going on. Built by hunter gatherers basically. And it's unlikely that it's the only example out there waiting to be discovered. In short you can't just claim "accuracy" because you've read the back of the cover of "Guns germs and steel". Human culture and history and how different cultures came to have different histories and outcomes is far more complex than that.

    Gobekli Tepe is considered by Klaus Schmidt (foremost expert on the site) to have been a religious site, not a settlement, and used as a pilgrimage site for people of the region, not as a civic centre or encampment.

    It is also, funnily enough, very close to Karaca Dağ where the earliest evidence of cultivated wheat was found.

    But sure how and ever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Though oft repeated completely untrue. The only time the Chinese were ahead of Europe in per capita wealth, food production and the like was in the Tang dynasty(circa 7th century). Either side of that Europe was ahead. The old "dark ages" is another myth. A handy title for classicists to label the bit between Rome falling and the later medieval. Oh and Rome didn't exactly fall either. The eastern empire continued and the Roman church quickly gained ground as a temporal power that ruled Europe for centuries as a second level powerbase(though IMHO the best thing to happen to Europe was the decline of the western empire). Put it another way if Europe was in the "dark ages" eating mud, how come it was able to engage and often repel the high end civilisation and armies of the Islamic world? Going back to China and Europe, if a peasant in China in 1000AD was transported to China of 1700AD he or she would see few enough differences, but a European peasant would get one helluva shock.

    We're not talking about 1700AD though.
    The reign of the Khans started in the 13th century.

    At the time of their original invasions China was the wealthiest, most populous and most powerful country(ies) in the world.

    While I agree with you about the whole "dark ages" thing being a bit of a myth, Europe was still playing catch up for hundreds and hundreds of years and it took them an awfully long time indeed to match the wealth of China.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Possible but unlikely. Why? Europe was and is and has been for a long long time an area of competing nation states forever beating the crap out of each other. Even under Rome that was going on. Europeans are very well practiced at this. For the Mongols this would have meant a very different foe to say the Chinese. In the case of the latter, take Beijing, kill the emperor and replace him. Essentially cut off the head and game over. Europe was a hydra consisting of many heads attached to many bodies and many more waiting in the wings. So the Mongols beat say the Germans, then they have to deal with the Italians, and Spanish and Dutch and Polish and French(about the most consistently successful land army in history), to name but a few. It would make Europe a very hard place to take, keep and govern. The aforementioned Muslim empire tried it and did so when Europe was at a low enough point and they were on a high and it didn't last too long.

    They wouldn't have had to establish an overlord in charge of Europe to change history.

    A splinter of the Mongol armies headed by Subutai had just massacred pretty much the last bulwark between the Holy Roman Empire and the Mongol empire in Hungary and was preparing to invade central Europe. They only turned around when word reached them that Ogedai had died.

    I don't have the knowledge, never mind the ability to see different realities, to say for sure that had the invasion gone ahead, it would've resulted in the Mongols winning, but given the evidence - that the Mongols had already defeated European armies easily and had defeated far larger and more sophisticated armies in the far east, I think it's more likely they would've beaten all comers.

    That doesn't mean we'd now be culturally Mongolian or that they would've instituted a dynasty of rulers, but if 30% of Europeans had been killed, and if some of the great cities in continental Europe were obliterated, it's easy to see how things might've turned out differently.

    The point of all this is that it's wrong-headed to sneer at other cultures just because Europe "won" history. There are innumerable events in history that could've lead to things turning out very differently had they fallen another way.

    Maybe South America wouldn't have been plundered for another hundred years, maybe the England would've taken over all of Europe and had less incentive to spread it's tentacles all over the world. It's impossible to know.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 127 ✭✭Buzz Meeks


    to have been a religious site, not a settlement, and used as a pilgrimage site for people of the region, not as a civic centre or encampment.

    It is also, funnily enough, very close to Karaca Dağ where the earliest evidence of cultivated wheat was found.

    Perhaps their God inspired them (cursed them?) to develop crop cultivation


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba



    I suggest you do some research into Pre-Clovis settlement of the Americas and stop using a wiki page with a source material published in 2005 quoting mid 90's papers. There have been some major findings in the last 10 years.

    Pedra Furada for example has potentially 31,000 year old settlement remains and Monte Verde, which outdates your claims be several thousand years is widely accepted in mainstream archaeology as a bona fide pre-clovis site.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Thread is now a certified "Amateur historian cocksize fight".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Thread is now a certified "Amateur historian cocksize fight".

    That would be amature anthropologist cocksize fight, sir!


Advertisement