🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29 May 1997 08:38:00 GMT, harry@nautronix.com.au (Harry Protoolis)
wrote:

>In article <338cf8a2.162193@news.picknowl.com.au>,
>	brindley@cheerful.com (David Brindley) writes:
>> On Thu, 29 May 1997 07:58:08 -0700, Geoff Pike <gpike@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>On his first day in the Senate, WA Liberal Ross Lightfoot said -
>>>"Aboriginals in their native state were the lowest colour on the
>>>civilisation spectrum."
>>>
>>>Where does the Liberal party find these people? Remember they also found
>>>Pauline Hanson as well! The newly appointed Senator's remark shows
>>>breath
>>>taking arrogance. Here we have a civilisation that lived in Australia
>>>for 30,000 plus years, in harmony with the environment, without
>>>pollution, mortgages, stress, or environmental degradation, without loss
>>>of native fauna species etc etc etc - and this turkey is arrogant enough
>>>to basically call them the lowest form of life.
>>>
>> Here we have another bullshit argument from the abo apologists. I
>> really must wonder where some people get their information.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> These were not in evidence in aboriginal communities in 1788.
>
>Here we have another bullshit argument from murdering white bastards. I
>really must wonder where some people get their information.
>
>While not wishing to put words in his mouth I would guess that the
>original post made a simple error in his choice of words. I suspect that
>he should have referred to the aboriginal 'society' or 'culture' rather
>than civilisation (which as you rightly point out requires cities).
>
Sorry, referrred to civilisation cos that was the word used by
lightfoot. If word not civilisation then Lightfoot was righter or
wronger and whole thread unravels.

>However if you replace the word 'civilisation' with the work 'society'
>his argument holds up fairly well.
>
>> As to living in harmony with the environment, are you aware that it
>> was the use of fire by aborigines that destroyed Australia's great
>> forests and turned much of the land into desert? This is fact.
>
>Rubbish, fire use by the aborginals has had an impact on coastal
>forests, probably causing them to get a bit denser due to the number of
>fire-seeding species found there. The inland deserts are that way due to
>salinity and low rainfall, after all as far as we can tell it used to be
>an inland (salt) sea.
>
>The quantity of forest that we have destroyed in 200 years utterly
>dwarfs the amount affected by the aboriginal people in the preceding
>40,000 years.
>
Total crap. Aborigines destroyed the forests. Do some research.

>> Can you prove there was no loss of fauna? Who wiped out the giant
>> kangaroos and wombats. And someone must have killed all those etcs.
>
>Hmm, have you never heard of evolution, or climate change ? Yes there
>was species loss during pre-european times, but again, nothing like the
>rate we have had since. Compared to us, the aboriginals lived in damn
>near perfect harmony with nature.
>
Have you heard of the ice ages? And then the global warming that ended
them and continues today as part of the planet's natural cycle,
regardless of human intervention. The greenhouse gasses of volacanos
alone ensure this.

>> Yes, on the scale of civilisation, the aborigine circa 1788 was at the
>> very lowest part of the scale.
>
>You seem very attached to civilisation, in terms of culture and society
>they were a very complex society with a highly developed culture. Sure
>they lacked cities and steam engines but this does not give us the right
>to wipe them out.
>
Agreed, we have no right to wipe them out, and I do not believe
anything I have said above supports that notion.

>> 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.
>
>They did have art, religion, social structure and a complex system of
>land husbandry, which included burning off areas of land after use to
>encourage the native fauna to reseed.
>
How do native fauna re-seed during / after a fire? I would guess it
would kill or disperse them, thus slowing breeding temporarily

>> They had none of the features that mark a civilised society.
>
>Though they had all of the featured of a distinct culture and society,
>just not one which lived in cities. 
>
And it is living in cities that shows the rise of society, culture and
learning from the primitive, stone age system the aborigines were
locked into.

>> What they did have was a very tenuous grasp on life, marked by long
>> periods of deprivation and malnutrition.
>
>This was not case in pre-european times at all. It is only since we
>forced them off the most productive land that this situation arose.
>
>
>>>No Senator, it is you that is showing your lack of civilisation and your
>>>lack of the big picture by making such a biased, insensitive and
>>>appallingly ethno-centric remark! You should resign immediately.
>>>
>> Yes, the senator should resign; for being gutless enough to appolgise
>> for erroneously telling the truth.
>
>I think that the Senator should stay where he is as an embarrasing
>reminder to the voters of this country that they need to do rather
>better next time.
>
Of course, a little more learning may show you that this senator, due
to a quirk in the system, was not elected by the voters of Australia.
He was appointed to fill a casual vacancy.

>If the Liberal party continues to put forward candidates of this low
>level they should be punished at the ballot box. As for the voters,
>electing this sort of idiot is it's own punishment.
>
See above. Not elected by the voters. The lack of research and
knowledge in this NG really amazes me at times.

>> Why do the twerps of the world always demand the resignation of those
>> whose opinions they dispute?
>
>This is a common political ploy, it rarely works, and neither side of
>politics is innocent of it.
>
>> And ethno-centric? Please? What has happened to the facts? I know that
>> sometimes they arre unpleasant and they don't always suit our
>> theories, but they cannot be changed to suit the fashion of the
>> moment.
>
>
>The facts have little to do with the Senator's comments. He was not
>being ethno-centric he was being a racist. His automatic connection
>between 'not like ours' and 'low' is common amoungst that sort of racist
>bigot.
>
Please define racist in terms of the senator's comments. To me, it
seems like a close approximation of the situation that prevailed in WA
before white settlement. Ever read Dampier's views? But I suppose, as
well travelled as he was, he was just another white man in a white
sheet carrying a box of matches. Even though he had a higher opinion
of other non white races.

>>>And while I'm at it, what about his party's refusal to apologise or
>>>compensate for the aboriginal kids stolen from their parents over a
>>>period of some 60 years? Haven't they heard of the concept of collective
>>>responsibility? If we wrongly jail someone, the community has a
>>>collective responsibility to compensate that person (even many years
>>>after the event) - and we do. 
>>>
>> And while I'M at it - Have you read the entire report? Or just the
>> bits they show on tv? Compensation is one of the lowest priorities in
>> the recommendations.
>
>So ? the report recommended a formal apology and compensation, the
>government has clearly signaled that it intends to deliver neither.
>
SO? Have you read the report, or do you just aprrot the line you are
told to parrot?

>We expect the Germans and the Japanese to apologise and make reparations
>for the acts of the forbears in the 40's and 50's, we just don't like it
>when it our turn.
>
We do not, and did not expect the Germans and Japanese to make
reparations after ww2. Go and read some history. The rise of Germany
and Japan as economic powers was due to the aid they were given to
re-build thier economies after the war.

The aid was given to prevent the rise of another Hitler. it was the
reparations forced on Germany by Britain and France at end off ww1
that fed German xenophobia and hatred. Hitler was able to exploit this
to convince the Germans of the injustices done to their nation by the
ww1 victors. Combine this with his fervent style of patriotism and a
powerful presenatation and the seeds for ww2 were planted.

Again, please read your history- do a little research - before making
unfounded assertions.

>>>However what the Libs are currently saying is that if we remove children
>>>from their family, force them into a completely different and alien
>>>culture, expose some of them to abuse from foster parents etc - then we
>>>as a community we don't have ANY collective responsibily for the actions
>>>of our society and for the effect that this horrendous action has on
>>>them!  
>>>
>> Horeshit! Why don't you wait for the government's response, not the
>> response the media is saying they will make?
>
>Are you honestly saying you think the govt will make compensation and
>offer an aplogy to the stolen generations ? I hope you are right.
>
I don't know. I don't trust Howard, but I will wait for Howard to
talk, not ray Martin, and then i will make my judgement.

>>>Why don't we have a collective responsibility to compensate for the
>>>shameful acts that our society has committed on these children? We might
>>>have thought it was right to send someone to jail if we thought 
>>>(at the time) they were a murderer. However the minute we realise we
>>>were wrong we compensate them.  Why not the same with aboriginals or any
>>>other group?
>> 
>> These children are children no more, they are now well into adulthood.
>> If you wish to follow the line of monetary compensation, where do you
>> draw the line. The parents? The children? The children's children? Or
>> the biblical 7 times 7 generations? Do you even think we should draw a
>> line?
>> 
>> Let's stop being ethno-centric for a minute and look at the actual
>> lineage of most of these children. Very few full blood aboirigines
>> among them. Most of them were of mixed ancestry, so being taken from
>> the aboriginal side may be seen as rightly restoring them to the
>> non-aboriginal side.
>
>These children where taken from their families and put into foster care
>and/or orphanages. They were taken from one side of their background and
>given nothing at all. They were certainly never accepted into white
>society, and to suggest they were 'restored to their non-aboriginal
>side' is utter rubbish.
>
>> Perhaps there would be a lot less angst if the wankers of the world
>> would let them just be people, instead of insisting they be solely
>> aborigines and that they deny their non-aboriginal heritage. But maybe
>> that wouldn't suit your romanticised view of "the noble savage".
>
>A whole generation where turned into orphans and adoptees due to a
>stupid policy that went against human rights conventions *of the time*.
>This has created enourmous social problems, and it's time we took
>responsibility for that.
>
No not a whole generation. Just a part of it. The majority of
aboriginal children grew up in their own families.

The biggest social problem is that for their own purposes, many abo
leaders and their white fellow travellers want to confine aborigines
to a life of permanent victim status. They have no interest in
helpinhg the majority of aborigines rise to fulfill their potential.

>> Yes, with the wisdom of 1997, we can see the policy was wrong. But you
>> cannot judge the past by the standards of today. How will we be judged
>> in fifty years? We do not know, because we do not know what the
>> burning issues of 2047 will be.
>
>The UN anti-genocide treaty was ratified in the late fifties, and
>explicitly defines the systematic taking of children from their families
>as a form of genocide. The policy was wrong by the standards of the
>time.
>
And how often has the UN been wrong? it is not infallible, it is
merely a collection of failed politicians trying to make a name for
themselves. 

>> But if we refuse to take opportunities to progress, instead always
>> looking back with guilt and regret, we will be known as the generation
>> that failed to progress.
>
>I completely agree. We need to accept that a terrible wrong was done,
>and that we, as a society, must face up to it, apologise, make
>compensation and move on.
>
>'Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it'.  (who said that ?)
>
>> Cogito ergo sum.  uumh I think?
>
>I doubt it :-)
>
>H
>-- 
>-
>Harry Protoolis			Nautronix Limited
>harry@nautronix.com.au          Fremantle, Western Australia