🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 16:47:47 GMT, stanr@melbpc.org.au (Stan Rosenthal)
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 May 1997 11:24:17 GMT, brindley@cheerful.com (Johnny
>Kwailo) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 May 1997 17:30:09 GMT, stanr@melbpc.org.au (Stan Rosenthal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 May 1997 03:44:17 GMT, brindley@cheerful.com (David
>>>Brindley) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 May 1997 07:58:08 -0700, Geoff Pike <gpike@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>There was no aboriginal civilisation. Simply ekeing out an existence
>>>>as stoneage hunter/gatherers does not make a civilisation, no matter
>>>>how many years it lasted.
>>>>
>>>>By definition, a civilisation needs complex cultural, political and
>>>>legal structures, highly developed material resources, and cities.
>>>
>>>Whose definition is that? My Shorter Oxford does not mention cities at
>>>all, nor highly developed material resources - but what would it know?
>>>
>>Then get a new dictionary. try looking up the etymology of
>>civilisation / civil.
>
>Why a new dictionary.? This is an old word. My old dictionary says
>that "civil" is from the Latin "civis - citizen" and means "1. Of or
>belonging to citizens; of the nature of a citizen 1592; 2. Of or
>pertaining to the community of citizens   " It goes on to describe 15
>variations of the usage of "civil" - none of which refer to cities,
>though I now notice that usage 3 of civil refers to civic (1713)
>
>"Civic" - which is later (1656) in its first usage than "civil"
>(1592), refers to cities in the Oxford definition
>
>OK. By that definition of "civilised" - that it must relate to cities,
>the aborigines were not civilised.
>
>My reading of the interpretation then placed on that definition by
>those so keenly supporting it - and don't tell me it is only in the
>pursuit of accurate etymology - is that it is used to denigrate
>aborigines and to justify the injustices perpetrated against them.
>
>Not acceptable in my view.
>
Too bad. We must use the word "civilisation" as this was the word used
by the senator. Otherwise, where does the discusion head?

>>>As for complex cultural, political and legal structures - they were
>>>all present in aboriginal society.
>>>
>>
>>>>These were not in evidence in aboriginal communities in 1788.
>>>
>>>Not in evidence because the observers lacked the discernment to
>>>distinguish them.
>>>
>>Ah! but now we can discern that?
>
>Of course we can! The values of the observers of the era are clear
>from their writings.
>
But only when judged using your values of today.
><snip>
>
>>>>Yes, on the scale of civilisation, the aborigine circa 1788 was at the
>>>>very lowest part of the scale.
>>>
>>>As you would be on a scale I designed. Who designed the scale you
>>>refer to and what are its criteria. Do those criteria appropriately
>>>evaluate what is actually present in tribal aboriginal society or do
>>>they merely measure the extent of European-style development?
>>>
>>>>They had no writing; no agriculture; no animal husbandry; no
>>>>technolgy; no cohesive social systems outside the tribe; no knowledge
>>>>of the wider world (your big picture, I believe); no foreign
>>>>relations; no science; no permanent settlements.
>>>
>>>When I was in Queensland a couple of years ago, I was shown some
>>>berries which were bush tucker. They had to be dried and ground up
>>>into a paste, which then had to be cooked in the fire of a particular
>>>species of tree which burned at a higher temperature than any of the
>>>other species. If other wood was used, consuming that food sent you
>>>blind because the toxins within would not be destroyed.
>>>
>>So in 40,000 years they learned how to cook a few berries. A fairly
>>long time for trial and error to suceed I would think.
>
>Good of you to denigrate that achievement and avoid the questions
>about the criteria on the scale which placed aborigines so low.
>
>>>Aboriginal tribes had customs and taboos which were enforceable
>>>through sanctions including exile and death - a legal system in other
>>>words; they had special knowledge and initiation which was held by the
>>>elders and passed on; they had rule by the elders - a political
>>>system; they had inter-tribal trading which spanned huge distances
>>>(see Blainey's The Triumph of the Nomads); they understood how to find
>>>food where none was apparent to the European eye; ...
>>>
>>So have other tribes throughout history, but the fact remains that
>>other tribes progressed. The aborigines stagnated in a stone age
>>backwater. That cannot be denied.
>
>I still wonder about the significance you place upon these differences
>between aboriginal society and western societies. It all seems
>designed to convince yourself that they are not merely different, but
>that they are inferior and therefore can have anything justifiably
>done to them by the superior white civilisation.
>
><snip>
>
>>A pair of simple questions for you:
>>
>>1. What would have been their fate if white civilisation had not
>>arrived in 1788?
>
>Somebody would have likely colonised Australia at a later time - the
>french, for example, perhaps with similar consequences, perhaps worse,
>perhaps better. Have given up for some time speculating about
>alternative futures.
>
Good, I also gave up speculating on this question because there is
only one answer. The aborigines weree always going to lose this land
to a superior technology/culture/civilisation.

>>2. Name 10 contributions to technological advancment made by
>>aborigines prior to 1788.
>
>Pass. What's your fascination with technology? Does technological
>advancement prove anything other than the ability to develop
>technology? Yes, I know that it is a hallmark of our western
>civilisation and that i am very fond of many forms of technology such
>as the one I am using as I prepare and post this response ...
>
>But in relation to aborigines, so what?
>
>Where does it say that all peoples must develop technologically?
>
People who do not develop technologically, like the aborigines, end up
as a dead end grouping and do not survive intact when they meet a
superior technology.

Stop appoligising for their lack of advancement and accept that if the
entire world developed at the same rate the aborigines did we would
all still be naked hunter gatherers. Not a very bright prospect.

During to supposed 40,000 years they had sole occupancy of this land,
great civilisations rose (and fell in some cases) - Egyptians built
their pyramids, Rome spread its empire far, the Aztecs and mayas
developed complex scienbtific communities, China developed gun[powder,
printing and take away food. And the Aborigines? Not bloody much at
all.

OK, so you don't want to (Can't) name any tech.devs. of Abs. What
about nominating their contributions to woorld science, medicine,
transport, literature.What have they added to the general sum of munan
knowledge? To humanity?

>For that matter, where does it say that all peoples who do not do so
>*must* eventually be conquered and brutalised by the technologically
>advanced? I would like to think we can be better people than that -
>and that we can make amends for earlier wrongs when an opportunity to
>do so presents itself.
>
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Chookas
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>Cogito ergo sum.  uumh I think?
>
>By the way, what (if any) is the significance of your name change
>between the two posts from you cited in this thread? I have noticed
>generally that a number of yours have David Brindley and a smaller
>number have Johnny Kwailo. Hope that doesn't muck up Kym Horsell's
>stats.
>Stan Rosenthal

JK was an error, intended only to annoy a certain occasional poster.
Kwailo was the name chinese used for their British colonisers. It
means "white devil".

--

David

Cogito ergo sum.  uumh I think?

--