So basically you're saying the Aboriginal peoples lack intelligence? I know a word for people that have these sorts of views. There's plenty that you need to understand, I know you won't but I suggest you try and educate yourself just a little bit on aboriginal history. Ignorance is not something I have time for and is a perfectly acceptable thing to complain about when you post absolute reprehensible shit.

Believe it or not, you can actually be proud of some things that have been built and established here and also ashamed of other aspects. It doesn't make you less of an Australian.

I think that's the argument he's making. That we don't "feel guilty" for the cultures that the Romans conquered and subjugated because we know it was a different time.

I don't think people today should feel guilty for what happened 200 years ago either but it should be called what it was and that's an invasion.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

I really do not want to weigh in on this in fear of being labelled racist but out of curiosity isn't it common knowledge and scientifically backed that the aboriginal people are in fact less intelligent than anglo-saxons?

I don't actually know the details. It may be a wives tale.

I don't think you're racist but measuring intelligence is pretty subjective and in my opinion impossible to measure without introducing a heap of biases.

I agree. Measuring intelligence based on 'selected' characteristics is a dangerous game.

Just mentioning the rumour.

- Cathy Freeman
- Adam Goodes
- Eddie Marbo
- Douglas Nicholls
- Marcia Langton
- Mick Dodson

Everyone is just an average person until they do something above average.

I have a horrible feeling phrenology is about to be discussed by some people aha

No - its common MYTHOLOGY. Completely unbacked by any science. If you are really interested in why some cultures were able to evolve technology and others weren't able to, I highly recommend a book by anthropologist Jarrad Diamond called "Guns, Germs and Steel".

Essentially the short answer is that societies who had the following things were able to evolve technology:

- Arable crops
- Domesticable animals
- Can't remember the other one!!!

Without these things, it is essentially impossible to move beyond subsistence hunter gatherer societies.

It has nothing to do with intelligence.

The idea behind the first settlers was to establish a colony. In effect the settlers displaced the native people of the land (and most the time it was through force especially as they expanded and encroached on different indigenous tribes). In effect this was an invasion of indigenous lands, as there was very little mutual agreement between indigenous populations and settlers. So what started as a colonisation of a new "world", turned into a "invasion" as the colonies grew / expanded.

The ruling of terra nullius in Australia by the Crown (in other words the Crown owned all the land in Australia at settlement) does support the notion that they invaded and claimed all the land for themselves, rather than any treaties or mutual agreements reached with the indigenous people.

Edited by sokorny: 31/3/2016 02:52:32 PM

Actually, what i took from the reply (apart from wishing i didn't smile at the swamp people line) is that the notion of "we" does not seem as fixed as perhaps it once did.

I understand that it's being used in the context of "our" education system etc but I do think that is changing with more access to more information and points of view rather than one text book. Whether that leads to more or less prejudice only time will tell but I could hazard a guess...

I agree and understood that "we" view roman conquests in a softer light than say, German conquests in the 20th century. I realised instantly I was unable to express my point about cultural relativism properly but being at work makes it hard to spend too long on any one post or even thought.

I know I have an excellent point in my pea brain somewhere it's just yet to be fully formulated. I'll get back to ya ;)

I have been meaning to get a copy of that book for a while now!!!

I imagine it also must have, in part, something to do with necessity. In a land as large as Australia with such small, spread out populations there was no need to compete for resources

You made some good points already :lol:

White man is just better at that kinda stuff.

-PB

How can you invade a place that has no concept of a nation-state?

Terra Nullius.

And the previous inhabitants had 50,000 years to come up with some sort of civilisation yet failed miserably.

Colonisation & civilisation FTW.

Thelma Plum is certainly pushing forward with reconciliation:



I'm sorry I forget that only non-white people are allowed to decide what is and isn't racist :lol:

Edited by bethfc: 31/3/2016 04:28:21 PM

This is a summation of Diamond's argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of superior intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

The first step towards civilization is the move from nomadic hunter-gatherer to rooted agrarian society. Several conditions are necessary for this transition to occur:
- access to high-protein vegetation that endures storage;
- a climate dry enough to allow storage;
- and access to animals docile enough for domestication and versatile enough to survive captivity.

Control of crops and livestock leads to food surpluses. Surpluses free people to specialize in activities other than sustenance and support population growth. The combination of specialization and population growth leads to the accumulation of social and technologic innovations which build on each other. Large societies develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which in turn lead to the organization of nation-states and empires.

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia has barley, two varieties of wheat, and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; and goats, sheep, and cattle. Eurasian grains were richer in protein, easier to sow, and easier to store than American maize or tropical bananas.

As early Western Asian civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport. Diamond identifies 13 species of large animals over 100 pounds (45 kg) domesticated in Eurasia, compared with just one in South America (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species) and none at all in the rest of the world. Australia and North America suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene, whilst the only domesticated animals in New Guinea came from the East Asian mainland during the Austronesian settlement some 4,000–5,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan biological relatives of the horse including zebras and onagers proved untameable; and although African elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[2][3] Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication.

Eurasians domesticated goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tillage of fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Large domestic animals such as horses and camels offered the considerable military and economic advantages of mobile transport.

A crucial and unintended product of animal domestication was the transmutation of viruses from livestock to humans. Smallpox, measles, and influenza were the result of close proximity between dense populations of animals and humans. Through chronic exposure and centuries of intermittent, but nondecimating, epidemics, Eurasians developed significant resistance to these viruses. Although malaria is often considered the most dangerous micro-organism to humans, it is geographically limited. Smallpox is geographically unlimited, and Eurasians took it with them wherever they went.

Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its east-west orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Similarly, Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from north to south: crops and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's east-west orientation: in the first millennium BCE, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted Southwestern Asia's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium CE, the rest of Europe followed suit.

The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of nonfarming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using the guns and steel of the book's title.

Eurasia's dense populations, high levels of trade, and living in close proximity to livestock resulted in widespread transmission of diseases, including from animals to humans. Natural selection forced Eurasians to develop immunity to a wide range of pathogens. When Europeans made contact with the Americas, European diseases (to which Americans had no immunity) ravaged the indigenous American population, rather than the other way around (the "trade" in diseases was a little more balanced in Africa and southern Asia: endemic malaria and yellow fever made these regions notorious as the "white man's grave"; and syphilis may have originated in the Americas). The European diseases – the germs of the book's title – decimated indigenous populations so that relatively small numbers of Europeans could maintain their dominance.

You missed a bit :



So what you said is not what she is saying because the issue she is commenting on (rather childishly I'll grant you that) is specific to Aboriginal people and a specific thing said relating to them and their history therefore she is saying they should have a voice heard in the debate.

Don't play games with cliches like your last sentence it only discredits your point

Given that the "nation-state" as a concept is generally thought to be a 19th century phenomenon, the British Empire had no conception of the nation-state until after they invaded and colonised Australia.

I'm sure if you asked a Gaul or a Briton in the early ADs, they would be able to explain that Julius Caesar was invading their territory, without needing to understand the concept of the nation-state.

The intention was not to make a serious point. I can't take people like this seriously. Racist is such an overused term it's not funny.

Her outburst is a joke. I strongly dislike the insinuation that only certain opinions matter. Also, she's pretty racist herself, eluding to the skin colour of the guests on sunrise. But hey, can't say that can we?

All we need is someone like her playing the victim on national tv to stir up the bleeding hearts of society :roll:

She thought someone of Aboriginal heritage should have been involved in the discussion. Now she may have expressed that opinion in a way some may not agree with, but it's hard to argue her main point is wrong.

She also gets credit for using this :lol:

:lol: I saw that. It's pretty good.

I have no idea who she is and the way she expresses herself means she is not someone whose opinion I put much stock in anyway to be honest. She does nothing to help her own side with outbursts alike this

Having only 2 (nominally conservative) commentators talking on a national tv program insinuates that only their opinions matter.

Basically what I was trying to say but put more succinctly

:lol: Sorry I forget we need to have a hipster on the program as well for diversity.

Hope Sunrise are taking notes :p

I think it says everything about the mainstream Australian mentality that a TV show decides to debate this topic without even involving an indigenous person in the discussion.

They were all probably afraid of being hammered by Alan Jones :lol:

Great comeback :roll: