Oceania LOL! Apparently, "Free" trade > culture

Ok, answer me this question.

How come when Asians, Indians, Pakistanis, etc... come to this country as refugees, with NOTHING in their pocket, yet with very, *,very*, HARD work, they can send their children / grandchildren to school, university, and they can come out doctors, lawyers, engineers...

YET, on the other hand...

For the past 30 - 40 years we have been spending BILLIONS of dollars annually on the Aboriginal industry, ASTIC, etc...

YET,

Where are all the Aborignal doctors, lawyers, engineers, physicists, politicians, etc...

None whatsoever! Where is the RETURN ON INVESTMENT?

Perhaps we should invite all the worlds imminent anthropologists, and for once and for all, we can come to the united common agreement that the Australian Aborignee's are the dumbest race on earth; a race with a genetic disposition of below average intellegence; ie - Neanderthal.

 

When you get the world's preeminent anthropologists together to come to a firm agreement on this and present proof of it, I might be alright with you say something like that. However, until that point, I'm not about to put up with the slander of an entire race. Consider this a warning. Besides, I don't think someone who still can't spell Aborigines properly has the right to call any race the "dumbest race on earth".

 

Who do you give me a warning for giving my personal opinion. I was told that the 'Thought Police' was a vague myth... I pray hope that this does resort to the depths of non-existance.

 

Let me give this profile:

"I am about 18-19 years old. I go to university, which Mummy and Daddy paid for, which I gladly accept, yet I have to throw myself amonst the battlers and fight for the righteous who can't afford tertiary education.

I have never worked a real hard days work in a real job before, yet without this real life experience, I am quick to judge those who have, and have and many more decades of experience than I have.

Univeresity text books have taught me the worlds history from a biased one sided point of view of real life, reading non-mainstream political correct literature is an aburd thought that would never enter my conscious, as it would effect my force-fed beliefes.

Finally... I am young I know everything, you are old and know nothing... so there!"

Does thing fit anyone here? If it does, please let me know. I think it is a fascinating subject worth further sudy and recognition.

 

HawkNC... I just want to present you with some FACTS, you wanted proof, these are facts, and to dispute otherwise, please provide proof.

The Aboriginals NEVER:

A) Entered the Stone Age
B) Entered the Iron Age
C) Entered the Stong Age
D) Entered the Industrial Age
E) Entered the Information Age
F) Never had a peaceful culture as do-gooders myth tries to persist. This continent had hundreds if not thousands of different Aboriginee nations / cultures who had different languages / culture
G) Never developed the concept of personal hygene / sanitation (ie: what the Romans at least did 2,000 - 3,000 years ago)
H) Never developed farming or agriculture
I) Never developed a WRITTEN LANGUAGE
J) Never developed mathematics or astronomy

Need I go on?

 

OK HawkNC, forget my anthropologist comment...

Why do you think that immigrants in this country have done infinitely better than the aboriginal popuation, considering that the immigrants how done so with little aid, whilst the aboriginal populations recieves at least $1 billion dollars per year via ATSIC?

 

Dude, you might not have noticed, but people aren't replying to your stuff, so posting more of it isn't really going to achieve anything other than making yourself look extremely arrogant and pushy.

That being said, just taking a look over your list of things that the Aborigines "never" achieved, the truth is most cultures didn't achieve all of them singularly either anyway.

For Example:
The only reason many parts of Europe were sanitised at all in that time was because the Romans took over. Had they not been there, they would have been just as bad, if not more so. Not really the Aboriginal people's fault they were on the other side of the world and didn't happen to be colonised by the Roman Empire is it?

Also, the Aboriginal people didn't need to farm or have an agricultural basis. They were smart enough to work with the land, rather than feeling the urge to be in control of everything.


Who do you give me a warning for giving my personal opinion.

Personal opinion.

PERSONAL opinion.

PERSONAL opinion.

Operative word here is PERSONAL.

Why do you insist upon shoving your racist perspectives on everybody else?


And, just out of curiousity, how much Aboriginal studies have you actually done? Do you actually know anything about the way their culture functions?

 

And yet I am called 'racist', as this is your personal opinion!

For some that would kow-tow to the political correctness and deem it racist, others would just label it as plain obvious clear as day fact.

 

Oxford dictionary states:

Racism:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


Saying that Aboriginal people are downright stupid simply because they are Aboriginal would class as judging their ability by their race, no?

You fit the definition of a racist, so it ain't just my opinion.

 

But being based on fact, and truth, it WOULD have to be correct, wouldn't it?

Okay, let's take it from the point of view from 200+ years ago, when Captain Cook first arrived.

Who had a the better of the deal? Anglo-Saxons traded a few beads for hundreds of hectares of land? Hmmm... who is the smarter?

 

The two races couldn't understand each other's language so the Aborigines really can't be blamed for not understanding them.

It'd be the same as you trying to bargin with someone in English when they were the ones in charge of the deal and they spoke Gaelic. How would you know what they were offering?


You'll also find that there's a history of similar incidences occuring in the past, not just with the Aborigines - the English trading small goods with Native Americans for their land and ripping them off too, for example.
It's the typical Westernised colonisers taking advantage of isolated inhabitants routine.


"Who is smarter?" is an erroneous statement - you're into the whole apples versus oranges thing.
A person can be smart at maths and another person can be smart at grammar. Neither of them could be called stupid, only smart in different areas.
We were more smart at some things, Aborigines were more smart at others.

Somehow I don't think you'd be able to survive Central Australia with no supplies or fresh water as well as those Aborigines could, Gath.

 

But you prove my point totally.

Both the Aboriginees and the Anglo Saxons couldn't EQUALLY understand each other, but the Anglo Saxons got the better of the deal always, even though they were the minority at the time.

Same for the Anglo Saxons and the American Indians example you provide.

Why is their such a guilt complex of being an Anglo-Saxon Caucasian?

 

Well, the European style culture has always been extremely forceful by nature, looking for expanding lands and riches. The Aborigines weren't like that, so they didn't have any experience with how the Westernised world functioned.
That's not to say either culture was better or worse than the other, just different.

But, even if we were smarter and did get the better deal, like you say we did, we SHOULD feel guilty - we knew better, yet we still took advantage of them, raping them and their land!
Well, that is to say, the people of that time should have felt guilty. Though of course, they didn't, because they were always taught that their culture was supreme and never thought otherwise.

I'm not saying we should feel guilty about what our ancestors of the past did. We should, however, at least try to boost our intelligence levels up a bit and broaden our minds to other cultures, accepting them as valid if not approving of them or particularly liking them.
It'd be a step in evolution if it was so.
We'd be getting past the petty animalistic impulses of fearing things unknown and self preservation to something on a higher plain.

 

How DO you know the Aboriginees were not like that??? How DO you know that they didn't fight other tribes for increased land, etc...

You DON'T do you? And as such, you are resorting to the apologist left-wing, change history, do-gooder, social-engineer view of Australian history.

 

I remember back in 77' we used to eat American GI's all the time. This one time we captured an entire platoon and make them into a stew.


Good times.

 

Oh for crying out loud!!!
How do I know all that stuff?

How do you know any of the historical stuff that you have stated in this thread so far is accurate!?! You cannot be 100% certain of ANYTHING unless you were there yourself! And even then there's room for personal bias!

Just because some things are written down doesn't mean that they are the be-all and end-all of everything. Ancient written text can easily be misinterpretted by the changing use of linguistics as time passes. What a word meant back then does not necessarily mean the same thing now.
Because of that, the verbal historical stories passed down by the Aboriginal people are just as valid as anything that was written.
Perfect example would be the Bible. How many thousands of different interpretations of that history are there around?

 

Um.... Ok!

 

At least the bible, from the old testament to the new testament has been PROVEN to be relatively unchangen... how can you garauntee this with jibber?

 

Relatively unchangen?!

How many different languages has it been translated through?? Latin, Greek, Arabic, English, list goes on... not to mention how those languages and their meanings have changed by themselves over 2000 years anyway.
Not to mention things like that originally there were over 10 gospels but one of the medieval popes decided he didn't like some of the events portrayed in them and banned them, bringing them down to the 4 that remain today.


But, this is not a bible debate. I could rant about that one for hours...

 

Why do you kind of people always insist that everyone should be brought down to the lowest common denominator. Why can't you accept that in nature / humanity that there are some races / species more advanced than others?!?

 

It's not about whether they are advanced or not advanced!

It's about the fact that they are people, just like you or me or anyone!

So maybe scientifically they might not be physically as advanced, fine. That doesn't make them any better or worse though, just different!

Simple example.
A child walks along with his mother and sees a lady across the road. He points and loudly says, "Mum, look at the fat lady!"
She quietens him down quickly and instructs him not to say things like that.
Why?
Her telling him not to say things like that doesn't detract from the fact that she is fat. It does, however, affect the fat lady as a person if she hears him. She'll be hurt and self conscious.

We're not lowering things down to the common denomenator in a physical sense. The fact may be that some people are more advanced than others. But, as people, everyone has feelings, so that is a line all things should be brought down to consider.

You can't live your life trampling and squashing other people down simply because they are different.
Perhaps you feel that feeling embarassment or pain due to someone else's ill feelings, abuse or judgement of you is a weakness?
It's that sort of belief that ends up making people very, very lonely.

 

You know Shaft isn't black. He's a machine.


A sex machine.

 

Yeah baby!

Rrrrrrooooowwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrrr.

 

Gatherer my question- which is still unanswered by the way- is personal curiosity as to how someone can point the finger at somone else and put them down on one basis, when ,if measured by another basis, they are the ones that are on the lower rung.
To put it simply, why put down Aborigines who can speak their own tribal tongue, english, and probably their neighbouring tribes tongue as well, when you can only speak english?

 

PoT: Before Ender comes in here and crams some knowledge into us all, I suggest you re-check your thinking Nyder.
National Socialism was not a socialist idealogy and had little to do with anything socialist: it was in fact, a far-right idealogy mirroring in many respects the fascist ideal since in Italy and so on.

Yes, it is. Given that socialists are of the left, and fascists are of the right, it is indeed, a contradiction. Unless you can demonstrate similarities between, say, Nazism and the writings of Henry George?

You are both emphatically wrong. Here is a little dictionary definition of socialism and fascism:

SOCIALISM
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

FASCISM
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

As you can see, the line between socialism and fascism is very blurred because they are very similar. Particularly in regard to centralisation and control of the economy. This was a staple of Hitler's Germany as he instigated very extensive Government controls on industry.

Here is an extract from Hitler's 25 point plan (proving he was as left-wing as any campus hippie):

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Yes, Hitler was a socialist, National Socialism and Socialism are one and the same.

Socialism is a fascist ideology. It oppresses by taking away people's freedom of ownership and organising individuals into 'collectives' to benefit a 'greater good' rather then determine their individual destiny. Socialism requires heavy Government control; and Government resides in a minority - making it very similar to dictatorship. In reverse, it is mob rule - with democracy.

Hence if you want an oppressive fascism, socialism is the answer. Don't tell me that socialism and fascism is polar opposites, that is complete nonsense and shows you have learned nothing from history.