After  40,000 years they have discovered hand paintings.

http://www.aaia.com.au/pics/9524.jpg

that piccie looks great muso.
what cave was it drawn 100's of years ago?
No, it is on a canvas, using western methods. I see.


here is genuine aboriginal "art"

http://www.aaia.com.au/symbol1.gif

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 6:10pm:

that piccie looks great muso. what cave was it drawn 100's of years ago? No, it is on a canvas, using western methods. I see. here is genuine aboriginal "art" http://www.aaia.com.au/symbol1.gif

You want cave paintings?
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/Bradshaw7.jpg

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/gallery.php

Some of the Bradshaw paintings predate and rival the Aurignacian cave paintings of Southern France.

From Kakadu National Park.

---

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 6:10pm:

that piccie looks great muso. what cave was it drawn 100's of years ago? No, it is on a canvas, using western methods. I see. here is genuine aboriginal "art" http://www.aaia.com.au/symbol1.gif

Yes - those are two of the traditional symbols associated with desert art. I've seen some examples at Yuendumu.

They have an Art Gallery there, which I've also visited. It's a multimillion dollar industry.

Some desert art can be very impressive too.

http://www.aboriginal-desert-art.com.au/9011-90.123-300.jpg

I'm glad you started this discussion on Aboriginal Art.  What styles of Aboriginal Art do you prefer?

I'm fascinated by desert Aboriginal art. I have bought a few great pieces myself over the years. If you can decipher the symbols, an authentic painting reads like a book.

A common theme with women artists is the 'Seven Sisters Dreaming', but each tribe and artist has their own take on describing the story.

Muso, those "U" shapes can symbolise men. They appear to be facing away from each other... Is the story about a conflict?

muso - not a problem :-)
I have done a dot drawing too, it's fun.

Does not compare to Rubens art or the like, but there you go.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:02am:

muso - not a problem :-) I have done a dot drawing too, it's fun. Does not compare to Rubens art or the like, but there you go.

;D  You are funny sometimes Sprintcyclist. Anyone would think that you believe the aborigines are an inferior race.

Aboriginal culture before we came along was fascinating. I don't know much about their art and what it represents, but some of their modern work is attractive and colourful and worth a fortune.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:02am:

muso - not a problem :-) I have done a dot drawing too, it's fun. Does not compare to Rubens art or the like, but there you go.

Let me guess - you don't understand art, but you know what you like?  ;D

How many thousands of dollars did you sell yours for, Sprint? Some Aboriginal Artists generally take between $2,000 and $10,000 for each work of art.

Some Queenie McKenzie works have sold for over $100,000. This is usually the case when the artist is dead, unfortunately.

Helian, the semicircles in that previous painting represent sandhills. The symbology varies a bit between communities, but generally a U shape is a woman or a seated man. A man is a sausage shape and a child is a blob.

---

tx mantra :-)

muso - i like michelangelo, van Gogh, dislike picasso.

my art is not prostituted. they  have been done for people and given away to same.

"a man is a sausage (unless he is erect) and a child a blob.!!!!!"
preschoolers are more artistic.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:59am:

tx mantra :-) muso - i like michelangelo, van Gogh, dislike picasso. my art is not prostituted. they  have been done for people and given away to same. "a man is a sausage (unless he is erect) and a child a blob.!!!!!" preschoolers are more artistic.

Aboriginal art is the written language of the people... If you can't (or don't) interpret the symbols, you can't fully appreciate the art.

Dali proved that with his 'paranoiac-critical' method.

helian - seems they can't interperet thier own symbols then.

Quote:

.......but each tribe and artist has their own take on describing the story......

some people used to interperet chickens intestines thrown onto sand.
did not make that "art"

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 1:03pm:

helian - seems they can't interperet thier own symbols then. Quote: .......but each tribe and artist has their own take on describing the story...... some people used to interperet chickens intestines thrown onto sand. did not make that "art"

You're comparing shamanism, necromancy and divination with aboriginal art.

Traditional Aboriginal art is about transmitting information such as the location and proximity of food and water resources or tribal law or important cultural myths and legends in the same way that European written languages transmit the same information to those who can read and interpret the script in which it is written.

muso wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:24am:

[quote author=sprintcyclist link=1258185884/0#7 date=1258329766] Helian, the semicircles in that previous painting represent sandhills. The symbology varies a bit between communities, but generally a U shape is a woman or a seated man. A man is a sausage shape and a child is a blob.

OK... Yes I've been told each community has its own symbols known only to its members, while many symbols are common to many communities. Not unlike the dialect differences within, say, Italian and German.

The first Aboriginal painting I bought years ago was a 'Seven Sisters Dreaming' interpretation which was a fantastic piece of art in its own right. Then the symbols were explained to me and the painting came to life.

http://www.aboriginalarttreasures.com/Meaning%20of%20Symbols.jpg

my kids drew better at preschool.

Much better

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 3:57pm:

my kids drew better at preschool. Much better

If you do say so yourself! ;D

http://www.gervase-phinn.com/gervase_images/kidspainting_13sm.jpg

;D

Aboriginal Art (which may be a better title thread) is art like Egyptian hyroglyphs are art, or as the Lasceux cave paintings are art. Or as the PNG face masks (from which Picasso took some of his clues) are art. Or like an attractive wallpaper is art. That is to say, they are not art.


Burgeois patrons, paying money for Aboriginal artefacts, may declare them art (looking after their investment) but that is not sufficient.  

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 7:10pm:

Aboriginal Art (which may be a better title thread) is art like Egyptian hyroglyphs are art, or as the Lasceux cave paintings are art. Or as the PNG face masks (from which Picasso took some of his clues) are art. Or like an attractive wallpaper is art. That is to say, they are not art. Burgeois patrons, paying money for Aboriginal artefacts, may declare them art (looking after their investment) but that is not sufficient.

Is Shakespeare not art?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 8:43pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2009 at 7:10pm: Aboriginal Art (which may be a better title thread) is art like Egyptian hyroglyphs are art, or as the Lasceux cave paintings are art. Or as the PNG face masks (from which Picasso took some of his clues) are art. Or like an attractive wallpaper is art. That is to say, they are not art. Burgeois patrons, paying money for Aboriginal artefacts, may declare them art (looking after their investment) but that is not sufficient.   Is Shakespeare not art?

It's drama, innit?

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 8:44pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 16th, 2009 at 8:43pm: Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2009 at 7:10pm: Aboriginal Art (which may be a better title thread) is art like Egyptian hyroglyphs are art, or as the Lasceux cave paintings are art. Or as the PNG face masks (from which Picasso took some of his clues) are art. Or like an attractive wallpaper is art. That is to say, they are not art. Burgeois patrons, paying money for Aboriginal artefacts, may declare them art (looking after their investment) but that is not sufficient.   Is Shakespeare not art? It's drama, innit?

And through their visual art the Aboriginal people transmit the drama of the dreamtime. Find an authentic traditional painting and learn how to interpret them... Like you need to do with a Dali.

There is no Dali or any other individual behind Aboriginal or other primitive artefacts. It is precisely the individial that is missing. And not just from one or two artefacts but from the whole idea of Aboriginal 'art'. Whover the 'artists' may be, their ancestors 10000 years ago woul have done the same piece, had someone offered them whatever compensations they are getting now.
For marketing purposes they identify the producer but there is no artistic individuality. The name serves only to establish scarcity and so to drive up the price. Go to any of the Aboriginal shanty towns and camps and you will not see a single work of Aboriganal 'art' anywhere. You will find no sign of any artistic sensibility.

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

There is no Dali or any other individual behind Aboriginal or other primitive artefacts. It is precisely the individial that is missing. And not just from one or two artefacts but from the whole idea of Aboriginal 'art'. Whover the 'artists' may be, their ancestors 10000 years ago woul have done the same piece, had someone offered them whatever compensations they are getting now. For marketing purposes they identify the producer but there is no artistic individuality. The name serves only to establish scarcity and so to drive up the price. Go to any of the Aboriginal shanty towns and camps and you will not see a single work of Aboriganal 'art' anywhere. You will find no sign of any artistic sensibility.

Rock art? (i.e. artwork painted on rocks).

Like white people, Aboriginals artists have their own distinctive and recognisable style.

As for Dalis there was and still is a whole industry of fake Dali producers replete with experts who can tell the difference.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 9:57pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2009 at 9:50pm: There is no Dali or any other individual behind Aboriginal or other primitive artefacts. It is precisely the individial that is missing. And not just from one or two artefacts but from the whole idea of Aboriginal 'art'. Whover the 'artists' may be, their ancestors 10000 years ago woul have done the same piece, had someone offered them whatever compensations they are getting now. For marketing purposes they identify the producer but there is no artistic individuality. The name serves only to establish scarcity and so to drive up the price. Go to any of the Aboriginal shanty towns and camps and you will not see a single work of Aboriganal 'art' anywhere. You will find no sign of any artistic sensibility. Rock art? (i.e. artwork painted on rocks). Like white people, Aboriginals artists have their own distinctive and recognisable style. As for Dalis there was and still is a whole industry of fake Dali producers replete with experts who can tell the difference.

Ok, name one pre-1950 artists producing Aboriganal 'art'.

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:07pm:

Ok, name one pre-1950 artists producing Aboriganal 'art'.

I can't. Very few had English names away from towns and there were little or no records kept of them, except maybe those kept by intrepid anthropologists who recognised the beauty and stunning originality in their art and began to awaken the world to what most Australians couldn't see at the time. I know of only a couple of artists myself... Cecily Yates being one (from Warakurna, WA). A mate of mine knows about a dozen good painters... most are known outside their communities. The fact that they're not well known or recognisable faces is because they seldom leave their lands and do not seek fame or popularity.

Why were they not recognised earlier... Aboriginals were worthless animals back then, were they not?  ;)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:48pm:

Why were they not recognised earlier... Aboriginals were worthless animals back then, were they not?  ;)

Not having art does not make them worthless animals. This is pointless exaggeration.

But they had no concept of art until they were told that there is a market in their artefacts. Discovering and nurturing that market does not mean that there is any artistic expression in these artefact. They may be interesting, even fascinating and  visually arresting and technically well executed but they are not art. They serve as memory aid for stories but are devoid of any individual voice or passion or wisdom or insight. They are slightly kitchy, schematic 'folk art'.

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 11:20pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 16th, 2009 at 10:48pm: Why were they not recognised earlier... Aboriginals were worthless animals back then, were they not?  ;) Not having art does not make them worthless animals. This is pointless exaggeration.

You missed my point. We don't value the attributes or output of those we consider worthless. Very few of us gave a rat's arse about Aboriginals in the 50's and most saw them as vermin.


Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 11:20pm:

But they had no concept of art until they were told that there is a market in their artefacts. Discovering and nurturing that market does not mean that there is any artistic expression in these artefact. They may be interesting, even fascinating and  visually arresting and technically well executed but they are not art. They serve as memory aid for stories but are devoid of any individual voice or passion or wisdom or insight. They are slightly kitchy, schematic 'folk art'.

So you're saying it looks like art, its constructed like art, it arrests like art.... ;D

How does it go? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then....

Just like white people, Aboriginal people can understand the difference between the objective and the abstract.

Just like white people's art, Aboriginal art is a fusion of the sensual, the poetic, the aspirational and mythological...  Expressions of the individual's quest to reach out to the mind of the other... to challenge and negate human solipsism... By proving that other minds exist.

The need to produce art is an instinct of the species.

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 10:07pm:

Ok, name one pre-1950 artists producing Aboriganal 'art'.

oh God  ::)

er....er....Albert Namatjira?

as in:

I am, you are, we are Australian.
I'm a teller of stories, I'm a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira, and I paint the ghostly gums
I am Clancy on his horse, I'm Ned Kelly on the run
I'm the one who waltzed Matilda, I am Australian.
........
........
We are one but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come,
we share a dream,
And sing with one voice,
I am, you are, we are Australian.

muso wrote on Nov 17^th, 2009 at 1:24pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2009 at 10:07pm: Ok, name one pre-1950 artists producing Aboriganal 'art'. oh God  ::) er....er....Albert Namatjira? as in: I am, you are, we are Australian. I'm a teller of stories, I'm a singer of songs I am Albert Namatjira, and I paint the ghostly gums I am Clancy on his horse, I'm Ned Kelly on the run I'm the one who waltzed Matilda, I am Australian. ........ ........ We are one but we are many And from all the lands on earth we come, we share a dream, And sing with one voice, I am, you are, we are Australian.

Touché.

Shame on the rest of us for not picking that one up...

Not so fast with that shame, boys.

Albert Namatjira was not producing 'Aboriginal' art - no dots, no hyeroglyphs, no x-ray figures, no hand-prints on rocks. He was an Aboriginal man producing 'European' landscape art, mostly.
Not the same thing.

What's the significance about 1950 anyway? A lot of factors that we take as part of a culture postdate 1950. Like any other culture, Aboriginal art and culture is evolving.

- and why do we have to provide names anyway?  Lascaux cave art was certainly art in every sense, and so is Bradshaw.

You probably haven't seen Bradshaw art up close and personal in the Kimberley. There is no question that it's art, just as modern Aboriginal Art is unquestionably art.  The work of some Aboriginal Artists, such as Queenie McKenzie is quite rightly regarded as fine art .

Works like this one grace the walls of many corporate offices around the world.
http://www.artmob.com.au/images/pansy09/11.jpg

muso wrote on Nov 17^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

What's the significance about 1950 anyway?

Sorry, should have said 1963. That's when a lot of things were invented...

muso - that's a good piece of artwork.

surely, everyone would agree on that ?

It honestly looks like the artist forgot to paint on the ladders.

imp - that's what makes art art.
its what the artist leaves to the viewers imagination :-)

aikmann4 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2009 at 4:24am:

It honestly looks like the artist forgot to paint on the ladders.

I'd have to be dead not to laugh at that one.  ;D

As far as Aboriginal Art is concerned, it's one of the things that we proudly show off to the world - literally in the case of Qantas Jets.

I have sent coasters with Aboriginal art to friends in Canada at Christmas. It's as much a part of Australian culture now as having a cappucino al fresco.  

I'll tell you something else. Harking back to when I was stuck in Guinea, West Africa feeling very homesick. I found a Chinese Restaurant, and it reminded me of Australia. After eating typical international hotel food for several weeks, it was a nice change.

muso wrote on Nov 18^th, 2009 at 10:21am:

aikmann4 wrote on Nov 18th, 2009 at 4:24am: It honestly looks like the artist forgot to paint on the ladders. I'd have to be dead not to laugh at that one.  ;D As far as Aboriginal Art is concerned, it's one of the things that we proudly show off to the world - literally in the case of Qantas Jets. I have sent coasters with Aboriginal art to friends in Canada at Christmas. It's as much a part of Australian culture now as having a cappucino al fresco.   I'll tell you something else. Harking back to when I was stuck in Guinea, West Africa feeling very homesick. I found a Chinese Restaurant, and it reminded me of Australia. After eating typical international hotel food for several weeks, it was a nice change.

Aboriginal art lends itself to kitch, doesn't it? Coasters, tea towels, t-shirts, jumbo jets. The latter is also a good product differentiation ploy. Everything can be kitchified, of course, but there is an awful lot of Aboriginal kitch in souvenir shops.  

Aboriginal art fulfils no aboriginal need, only a burgeois one. You only see the burgeoisie, haunted by bad conscience, gawping at it (not you, Muso, as always). Real Aboriginese are elsewhere.

muso - so when was that painting painted?

is that show the progress of > 200 years of white man as opposed to > 400,000 years of aboriginal "art" ie, blobs are children.

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 8:50pm:

Aboriginal art lends itself to kitch, doesn't it? Coasters, tea towels, t-shirts, jumbo jets. The latter is also a good product differentiation ploy. Everything can be kitchified, of course, but there is an awful lot of Aboriginal kitch in souvenir shops.

You mean like 'Mona Lisa' kitch? Or Dali's 'Soft watches' kitch... Or 'David'  kitch? Or Sistine Chapel kitch? Or Edward Hopper's 'Night Hawk' kitch, or Munch's 'Scream', or his 'Madonna', or Van Gogh's self portraits... Didn't Andy Warhol make that point?


Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 8:50pm:

Aboriginal art fulfils no aboriginal need, only a burgeois one. You only see the burgeoisie, haunted by bad conscience, gawping at it (not you, Muso, as always). Real Aboriginese are elsewhere.

Just like white people, the aboriginal people have a need to communicate and be understood by other peoples... To communicate their collective cultural memory and to be validated as members of the same species as other races...

Actually, Aboriginal art is very popular in continental Europe where there is no sense of guilt or bad conscience. I would bet that it's only in Australia where there's still a sense of revulsion over Aboriginal art... A persisting contempt for aboriginal Australians and chagrin at any evidence indicating that maybe they're more than worthless.

Communicate - yes. Produce art - no.

They had no aristocratic courts, galleries, public squares, community and town halls, private dwellings for which art everywhere was first concieved. And they had no notion of the individual, creative artist.

Most art, if it is interesting, is kitchified. The work of art is reduced to an image, the only bit of it the kitchifiers ever percieve.


For whitey, even with all the antropological explantions, 'Aboriginal art' is never more than an image, to begin with. It is kitch to begin with. It is for the consumption of spiritual tourists (and of course actual tourists in the form of reproductions), and as they hang them on their walls they declare, echoing the t-shirt from Bali: "I have been to Dreamtime too."

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 6:54am:

Communicate - yes. Produce art - no.

All art is primarily about communication. To impress and arrest the mind to make a point, as you have conceded.


Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 6:54am:

They had no aristocratic courts, galleries, public squares, community and town halls, private dwellings for which art everywhere was first concieved.

And they didn't wear silly wigs, either ;D


Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 6:54am:

And they had no notion of the individual, creative artist.

Art abstracts from life. If all aboriginal arts were doing was drawing a map of waterholes, that's what they'd produce... And they do that as well, produce maps for each other... On rocks etc to indicate the proximity of water. However, that is not all they are capable of and not all they are doing with the art they produce.

All art requires a human artist. That is art's sine qua non... Have you ever seen art produced by cattle?


Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 6:54am:

Most art, if it is interesting, is kitchified. The work of art is reduced to an image, the only bit of it the kitchifiers ever percieve. For whitey, even with all the antropological explantions, 'Aboriginal art' is never more than an image, to begin with. It is kitch to begin with. It is for the consumption of spiritual tourists (and of course actual tourists in the form of reproductions), and as they hang them on their walls they declare, echoing the t-shirt from Bali: "I have been to Dreamtime too."

Yes, all art can be kitchified... But that is an act after the fact, not a factor necessarily inherent in the original work nor the motivation of the artist (Warhol excepted). Hopper did not paint 'Night Hawks' with the expectation it would be redone with James Dean, Elvis Presley and Marylin Monroe as the subjects in the diner. He was presenting the ambient emptiness, the loneliness, of city life... The characters he painted in the diner were 'Joe Anybodys' for a reason. Painting famous people destroys the anonymity he constructed to emphasise his point.

But all that does not make his original painting not art.

Honestly, I find discussions concerning what constitutes art incredibly boring, utterly subjective and very circular; there's essentially no agreement either of you can obviously come to so there is little reason to even discuss this matter. For the record I actually like Aboriginal art, and everybody here knows that I'd be the last person in the world to shy away from calling their culture inferior to ours.

aikmann4 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 7:36pm:

Honestly, I find discussions concerning what constitutes art incredibly boring, utterly subjective and very circular; there's essentially no agreement either of you can obviously come to so there is little reason to even discuss this matter. For the record I actually like Aboriginal art, and everybody here knows that I'd be the last person in the world to shy away from calling their culture inferior to ours.

Thank you for registering your complete lack of interest in the subject. Your apathy has been carefully noted and communicated to the relevant authorities.
Thanks you again for taking the time to show no interest.



[edited for typos]

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 9:13pm:

muso - so when was that painting painted? is that show the progress of > 200 years of white man as opposed to > 400,000 years of aboriginal "art" ie, blobs are children.

Damn! So the art of the 19th Century is inferior because Western Society has progressed since then? Two Andy Warhols beats a royal flush of Hellenistic Period Roman Art? Sorry mate, but you just don't get art.  There is no correlation between art and 'progress'. If anything, some of the best art is associated with pain and anguish.

Artists are notorious for being troubled souls, and some of them were even suicidal at times. Forget about order and progress.

Now this is an example of what you'd call Kitsch. The artist probably never had a day of pain or anguish in his life.

I'd rather have a Queenie McKenzie on my wall any day.

---

My favourite is the ones where you fill your mouth with mud, then gob it over your hand pressed against the wall.
THAT, my friends, is art.

"I suffered for my art, now it's your turn" ;)

Ok, I confess. It was a combination of my warped sense of humour and probably waiting for some gratuitous praise in the way of defense for the example of Western Art I provided.

As you might gather, it wasn't painted by a professional artist  ;D  
I painted it about 10 years ago.

that's good muso.

who wants days of pain and anguish anyway ??

muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 11:01pm:

... some gratuitous praise .... .. I painted it about 10 years ago...

From your romantic, Hornblower period?  ;) Or your Freudian period?  :o

Very nice.  

Quote:

Or your Freudian period?

No, the freudian series are not his ship pics, but have you ever seen the train entering the tunnel series?  ;)

I thought I would save you the trouble muso.

---

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 8:56am:

muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 11:01pm: ... some gratuitous praise .... .. I painted it about 10 years ago... From your romantic, Hornblower period?  ;) Or your Freudian period?  :o Very nice.

No, it's from my 'cheap do it yourself art' period. ::)

Your painting is beautiful.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:08am:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 8:56am: muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 11:01pm: ... some gratuitous praise .... .. I painted it about 10 years ago... From your romantic, Hornblower period?  ;) Or your Freudian period?  :o Very nice.   No, it's from my 'cheap do it yourself art' period. ::)

I just wander how much CULTURE is needed to put few (thousands) dots on whatever media?

Happy wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 9:41am:

I just wander how much CULTURE is needed to put few (thousands) dots on whatever media?

Are you ethnic Chinese? If you are, isn't calligraphy a revered Chinese art form... Just a few brush strokes and... Voila ... or... 完成

http://blog.karmona.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/good-luck-fu-chinese-calligraphy.jpg

I think it should be legal to liquidate people detected to have Chinese calligraphy tattoos on the spot

aikmann4 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 8:47pm:

I think it should be legal to liquidate people detected to have Chinese calligraphy tattoos on the spot

At the very least strip them of all human rights and administer laser tats removal on the spot. And kick them off the benefit, of course.


Makes me think - I have never seen a proud Aboriginal with dots tattooed on. Maybe the deep cultural significance and artistic merit of dot painting hasn't percolated down to the lower classes in all those 10, 20, 40, 60, thousand (what are we up to now?) years.

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 7:56am:

Makes me think - I have never seen a proud Aboriginal with dots tattooed on. Maybe the deep cultural significance and artistic merit of dot painting hasn't percolated down to the lower classes in all those 10, 20, 40, 60, thousand (what are we up to now?) years.

On the other hand, correct use of the loincloths, body painst and leaves are significant, living concern.


"The routine has offended Aboriginal elders because of its random use of loincloths, bodypaint and eucalyptus leaves and there have also been question marks about the music and the use of the didgeridoo."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/russian-skaters-maxim-shabalin-and-oksana-domnina-defy-aboriginal-sensitivites-at-winter-olympics/comments-fn4yqfp4-1225833119882


We can't have random loincloth use, can we? That's just soo wrong.
Leaves everywhere? Bodypaint on the wrong spots? Terrible.

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 7:56am:

Makes me think - I have never seen a proud Aboriginal with dots tattooed on. Maybe the deep cultural significance and artistic merit of dot painting hasn't percolated down to the lower classes in all those 10, 20, 40, 60, thousand (what are we up to now?) years.

You mean you haven't seen pictures of aboriginals painted or ritually tattooed?

Remember the original polymer $10 note?

http://images.bankofjustin.multiply.com/image/6/photos/8/orig/34/Australia%2010%20Dollars%201988.JPG?et=izCOKpX%2CtpEDifiTK3osVg&nmid=9226841

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 6:04pm:

After  40,000 years they have discovered hand paintings.

Heard somewhere that customs are part of culture but not culture itself.
Those who herald their achievements as culture are overly generous.

However, when our society disintegrates their method of survival will be good model for some time.
Live of the land, do no buildings, no nothing, just move around and start fire for food to come to you.

One more thing, which doesn't gel with me too is them proclaiming themselves as custodians of the land. Total crap, they made few species extinct and just other species were lucky not to share the same fate.

Happy wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

Total crap, they made few species extinct and just other species were lucky not to share the same fate.

... including the first wave of aborigines who were killed off or assimilated by the second wave, except in Tasmania, where they survived only due to , er, rising sea levels making Tasmania an island.

Happy wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

Heard somewhere that customs are part of culture but not culture itself. Those who herald their achievements as culture are overly generous. However, when our society disintegrates their method of survival will be good model for some time. Live of the land, do no buildings, no nothing, just move around and start fire for food to come to you. One more thing, which doesn't gel with me too is them proclaiming themselves as custodians of the land. Total crap, they made few species extinct and just other species were lucky not to share the same fate.

How many species have been lost by Europeans and Asians? And not just here in Australia but back in their native lands. The Chinese also have a habit of eating their native animals into extinction.

I'm sure the Chinese would consider themselves custodians of Chinese territory.

Not wiping out native species was not point of consideration, it just happened that they did not manage to wipe more out.

To get the badge of somebody nurturing, taking care and carefully looking after is laughable.

Recently restrictions were put on number of dugong to be killed, as they would eat them all.

Happy wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Not wiping out native species was not point of consideration, it just happened that they did not manage to wipe more out. To get the badge of somebody nurturing, taking care and carefully looking after is laughable. Recently restrictions were put on number of dugong to be killed, as they would eat them all.

So they're no worse than any other native human group anywhere else in the world and a whole lot better than all industrialised ones where the harvesting of animals are concerned. Not many aboriginal boat fleets killing dugongs by the thousands and turning it into a multi-million dollar commercial enterprise as Japanese whalers would do were they given free rein, for example.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 6:37pm:

Happy wrote on Feb 23rd, 2010 at 6:24pm: Not wiping out native species was not point of consideration, it just happened that they did not manage to wipe more out. To get the badge of somebody nurturing, taking care and carefully looking after is laughable. Recently restrictions were put on number of dugong to be killed, as they would eat them all. So they're no worse than any other native human group anywhere else in the world and a whole lot better than all industrialised ones where the harvesting of animals are concerned. Not many aboriginal boat fleets killing dugongs by the thousands and turning it into a multi-million dollar commercial enterprise as Japanese whalers would do were they given free rein, for example.

They are worse (as far as the animals are concerned) than industrialised societies because they would not have a clue whether thy have hunted something to extinction or if their prey just left because of some spirit story. Industrialised societies can halt hunting, as it has happened with all protected species. That very idea, protected species, is a non-primitive notion.

Aboriginal society is primitive and savage. It is mildly interesting how they have lived in the desert for millenia. But some other desert dwellers have found ways to distinguish themselves from other species. With aborigines, life 300 years ago was exactly as it was 2000 or 5000 or 20000 years ago. Stone age people, unchanged, stuck in pre-history like few others.

I killed all the Kangaroos. It was me, guys.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 9:00pm:

Industrialised societies can halt hunting, as it has happened with all protected species. That very idea, protected species, is a non-primitive notion.

Yes - I've seen the results of such industrialised fishing methods using dynamite.

200 year-old (protected) turtles washed up on the Orissan shore every few metres.

Protection!

Big Donger wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 4:00pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2010 at 9:00pm: Industrialised societies can halt hunting, as it has happened with all protected species. That very idea, protected species, is a non-primitive notion. Yes - I've seen the results of such industrialised fishing methods using dynamite. 200 year-old (protected) turtles washed up on the Orissan shore every few metres. Protection!

You described crime here and it has nothing to do with protection, nor conservatism.

Happy wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 9:34pm:

Big Donger wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 4:00pm: Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2010 at 9:00pm: Industrialised societies can halt hunting, as it has happened with all protected species. That very idea, protected species, is a non-primitive notion. Yes - I've seen the results of such industrialised fishing methods using dynamite. 200 year-old (protected) turtles washed up on the Orissan shore every few metres. Protection! You described crime here and it has nothing to do with protection, nor conservatism.

And you think Indian authorities are doing anything about it?

Quote:

And you think Indian authorities are doing anything about it?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because some "industrial" (this is India we're talking about here) civilizations do not choose to care about conservation does not invalidate Soren's argument; that purposeful conservation of a species is made possible or faciliated greatly by civilization, and likely is not a viable option for primitive man.

The problem is, primitive hunter-gatherer societies always have the ability to point their finger at the 'crimes' of civilization seemingly without hypocricy because they themselves (claim) to never have engaged in them. They are special people, not predicating their voyage through history on material want or the superficialities of the civilized man, but rather a deeper understanding with the natural world and a satisfication in the simplistic. This is of course big bullshit; there is nothing intrinsically innocent about any of these peoples or their ways of life. It has been primarily their capability that has left them without real achievement, not cognizant refusal to achieve. They cannot damage the environment to the extent that civilizations can because they have always lacked the ability to be able to. Like Soren said, they are stagnant drifters through history; affecting their environment without seriousness not because its corruption would have been abhorrent to them, but because they simply couldn't.

Now they have been graced with that ability. Check out a local football field after a special Aboriginal only league match. You would think you were in the tip.

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 9:55am:

Quote: And you think Indian authorities are doing anything about it? What does that have to do with anything? Just because some "industrial" (this is India we're talking about here) civilizations do not choose to care about conservation does not invalidate Soren's argument; that purposeful conservation of a species is made possible or faciliated incredibly by civilization, and likely is not a viable option for primitive man. The problem is, primitive hunter-gatherer societies always have the ability to point their finger at the 'crimes' of civilization seemingly without hypocricy because they themselves (claim) to never have engaged in them. They are special people, not predicating their voyage through history on material want or the superficialities of the civilized man, but rather a deeper understanding with the natural world and a satisfication in the simplistic. This is of course big bullshit; there is nothing intrinsically innocent about any of these peoples or their ways of life. It has been primarily their capability that has left them without real achievement, not cognizant refusal to achieve. They cannot damage the environment to the extent that civilizations can because they have always lacked the ability to be able to. Like Soren said, they are stagnant drifters through history; affecting their environment without seriousness not because its corruption would have been abhorrent to them, but because they simply couldn't. Now they have been graced with that ability. Check out a local football field after a special Aboriginal only league match. You would think you were in the tip.

Just so.
And karnal, since when is India an example to be emulated in anything - except, of course, for socities that are even more half-arsed about adapting.

And some Aborigines (thankfully not all), are true to their historic form and are betting the wrong way again: they fashion their own  'modern' minds and attitudes after black liberationists and post-colonialists. Some even find expression for their resentment in that word-historical phenomenon of pure resentment, Islam.

Aboriginal adoption of the nugatory African-American culture is troubling, I agree. Truly, as of late, African-Americans have been the powerhouse of the world in producing some of the most valueless, sickening cultural claptrap, and frankly, we don't need a league of adopters here (that includes the pathetic whites that continue to patronize and panegyrize it as well).

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 9:55am:

Quote: And you think Indian authorities are doing anything about it? What does that have to do with anything? Just because some "industrial" (this is India we're talking about here) civilizations do not choose to care about conservation does not invalidate Soren's argument; that purposeful conservation of a species is made possible or faciliated greatly by civilization, and likely is not a viable option for primitive man. The problem is, primitive hunter-gatherer societies always have the ability to point their finger at the 'crimes' of civilization seemingly without hypocricy because they themselves (claim) to never have engaged in them. They are special people, not predicating their voyage through history on material want or the superficialities of the civilized man, but rather a deeper understanding with the natural world and a satisfication in the simplistic. This is of course big bullshit; there is nothing intrinsically innocent about any of these peoples or their ways of life. It has been primarily their capability that has left them without real achievement, not cognizant refusal to achieve. They cannot damage the environment to the extent that civilizations can because they have always lacked the ability to be able to. Like Soren said, they are stagnant drifters through history; affecting their environment without seriousness not because its corruption would have been abhorrent to them, but because they simply couldn't. Now they have been graced with that ability. Check out a local football field after a special Aboriginal only league match. You would think you were in the tip.

I certainly agree that we've over-romanticised the indigenous, at times to the point of glorification (or in new-age mythology to the point of deification) - but to then go on to say that Aboriginals are stagnant drifters through history and without any achievement or "capability to achieve" is just silly.

You must have a very Boys' Own notion of achievement and history - or read too many Enid Blighton books - to believe that our shared stories should all be of the adventure genre.

The idea that our histories must be about conquest and expansion - or be stagnant - shows how easily our previous policies of erradication could occur. That Aboriginal societies are/were too weak and powerless to transform their environment (outside of football), andare therfore undeserving of a place in history - undeserving of a place - has an almost Nazi ring to it. You can hear Wagner playing in the background.

You're right that there's big bullshit out there, but to regress to a reactionary ideology about Aboriginals and tips shows me what lurks beneath Australia, and how easy it must have been to take kids away from their families and attempt to breed out blacks from half-caste to quarter-caste to quadroon, octoroon, etc, etc, etc.

For people to say "but that had nothing to do with me!" and "I wasn't responsible!" - and then quote the very arguments used - shows me how far civilization has really come since eugenics and the Stolen Generation.

Quote:

but to then go on to say that Aboriginals are stagnant drifters through history and without any achievement

Judging from the historical record, this is exactly what they are. For 40,000 (50,000? 60,000? It actually amazes me people are willing to stack on more years to this seemingly ever growing period of time Aboriginals supposedly have existed on the Australian continent, as if it actually makes them look more impressive rather than worse. Frankly I'd much rather say "we''ve been here six hundred years" or something; maybe I'll recommend that they change the dates) they "achieved" one of the most staggeringly basic of cultures in the history of all human groups. To suggest it is silly that I call them stagnant drifters in this sense because they never left the stone-age, then you've got some incredible explaining to do. But don't worry, you can always remove your verbal equivocation skills from your mental skillset , polish them up a little and then put them to use trying to bicker with me on the definition of "achievement", as if I was ever talking about achievement beyond that as it pertains to civilization.


Quote:

You must have a very Boys' Own notion of achievement and history - or read too many Enid Blighton books - to believe that our shared stories should all be of the adventure genre.

Ah, we've already begun.


Quote:

The idea that our histories must be about conquest and expansion

I don't know what this even means. Are you trying to put words in my mouth by attempting to suggest that I was saying that achievement of civilization concerns directly or entirely to 'conquest' and 'expansion', or is this the launching point for a vaguely related harangue?


Quote:

That Aboriginal societies are/were too weak and powerless to transform their environment

Weren't they? For a people to truly achieve civilization as it is tradtionally known -- and thus transform the environment around them with ease and real control -- they need not only the will but the tools. A rough analogy to draw perhaps would be the field of astrophysics -- even the most ardent egalitarian would find it difficult to convince himself that every human being is capable of exceeding in such a mentally demanding field. Not just drawing upon the building block of intelligence as it is known, but other personality traits just as pertinent; curiosity, diligence, conscientiousness, etc. Why I am using astrophysics here to make my point is because it is the most extreme example that I could possibly draw, and this makes my point clear. Astrophysics, as nobody would ever try to deny, is not for everybody! Likewise, civilization, with its constant demand for the ability to comprehend, process and respond to complexity, a complexity that only becomes more convoluted as civilization continues to grow, is simply not for everybody, or all groups. With the aid of other groups more inclined, a group may just scrape by (perhaps just barely), but I cannot bring myself to believe that such a group by itself can. There is no reason to imbue myself with the inane egalitarian optimism of the current vogue because it is an optimism predicated upon nothing!


Quote:

therfore undeserving of a place in history

Again, don't know what this means. A prominent location in the annals of history is not owed, it is earned. Despite postmodern attempts to distort and modify this obvious fact for the sake of sensitivity, some cultures will only be remembered as curious paleolithic relics notable primarily for a longstanding, deeply ensconced position in a seemingly endless cultural and social stagnation. The aboriginals are one of them..

What exactly do you mean that they don't deserve a place in history?


Quote:

You're right that there's big bullshit out there, but to regress to a reactionary ideology about Aboriginals and tips shows me what lurks beneath Australia, and how easy it must have been to take kids away from their families and attempt to breed out blacks from half-caste to quarter-caste to quadroon, octoroon, etc, etc, etc.

Linda S. Gottfredson has written extensively that it is just as easy to get away with draconian terror aided by egalitarian claptrap as the other, opposing theories that attempt to explain human behavior. I am tired of the inappropriate dichotomy presented by progressives that propounds that environmental disparities=benign, fixable and unproblematic, while genetic disparities=invariably a road to ethnic cleansing or eugenics. If anything, 'taking aboriginals away from their parents' and raising them in white households sounds an awful lot like 'if we change their home environment, the gap between them and whites will disappear'. You can construct all sorts of schemes to remedy disparities between groups justified from either extreme view of the determinant of human behavior that you would find very disturbing. Let's get the bugger over it, realize that bad people can use just about any kind of justification whatsoever to do bad things, and focus on what is real. Let's not drive ourselves into a panic whenever race and these matters are brought up. We must talk about it openly or simply, we are doomed.

It sounds like Linda Gottfredson is right. I'm not even attempting to place any egalitarian or utopian veil onto Aboriginal culture. Bugger that.

I think where you're mistaken is by assuming that intellectual complexity is somehow good. If that's all you can come up with as proof that modern Western culture is superior to Aboriginal culture (and Aboriginal people themselves) - because that's exactly what you're saying without any question or doubt - then I think you're grasping at straws to defend a very arrogant position.

I have no knowledge of Aboriginal culture/values. I have a fairly good knowledge of the West. I don't assume that I'm superior to anyone else just because I don't get their paintings.

What I understand about some cultures is that they place a greater emphasis on subjective experience to objective "achievement". I don't think this is a weakness. I don't want this to be seen as a dichotomy, and I would hate the strengths the west has in engineering and medicine to be smashed by a crowd of grunts with an axe to bear.

Like the Khmer Rouge, for example.

But these dichotomies are fictions. No need to panic about race or anything - as if we haven't panicked in Australia well before the White Australia Policy came into creation.

If you don't have a mind, I guess you're forgiven. They say God protects children and drunks. But if you've got any intelligence at all, you should be able to see the Ku Klux Klan coming a mile away. And if this is what you see as progress, God help us all.

I don't see Aboriginal culture as superior or "pure," but likewise, I don't engage in dumb racist cliches, just because I don't know anything about the people I'm talking about.

They say the Europeans who hated the Jews the most under German occupation were the ones who didn't know any. I don't know if this is true or not - a lot of people got mired in that machine.

But you're right. The "Welfare" had justifications for what they did. What I'm presenting to you is that you're using their very justifications.

And I don't think it was because anyone was bad or good. I think it was because that's the way the machine back then was set. And the machine was set that way because people thought they were better - stronger - than Aboriginals. They saught, through careful government policy, to breed them out. They saught to give them Christianity. They removed the white-looking ones from their families, whilst they lamented the black-looking ones dying off due to the spread of farmlands: progress. They rounded them up and put them in missions: natural selection.

The strong overcoming the weak.

History.

I don't think many were bad. Like most under German occupation in the war, they just didn't know what was going on. Or they had other things to think about.

It's just ignorance.

You're right. We must talk about these things openly, because if we don't we're doomed. No need to panic, but when some of these policies were enacted on people until the 1980s, it can get a bit close to the bone. Telling them to just get over it can be a tad insensitive. How would you feel if you were removed from your family at birth because of your skin tone?

I know people who this happened to and have heard their stories. It's not fiction, and is very real.

And it wasn't made real by natural selection. It was made real by people doing these things based on their beliefs about their own superiority.

Actually, I think I'm wrong about this. I think Westerners are very insecure about their superiority and need others to be superior over.

As Soren loves to point out, now it's the Mohammedans.

I actually think that white Australians have a deep fear and mistrust of Aboriginal culture. The original poster's attempted scoff points this out, I think. What he demonstrated was his own ignorance (which is no great sin if you live and learn).

But when you don't learn from your own history, you'll repeat it. I know this from attempts at giving up smoking. I have to watch my thoughts closely, or I'll cave in.

If we don't examine our own inferiority complexes - and there are many - we're doomed to be insensitive, dumb, and arrogant. Just the sort of thing we hate in certain others we meet travelling overseas.

I know nobody's lighting any crosses here. But being intellectual around deep-seated racism doesn't change it. We should be free to mouth off about other cultures occasionally - but the belief in our inherent superiority is something else entirely. It's racism, sure, but it's not strength - it's fear.i

Quote:

I think where you're mistaken is by assuming that intellectual complexity is somehow good. If that's all you can come up with as proof that modern Western culture is superior to Aboriginal culture (and Aboriginal people themselves)

Where was I making the argument that a higher level of intellectual complexity means that a culture is superior to another? That's an entirely different matter from what we were talking about; that the ability to process and respond appropriately to complexity is one of the fundamental requirements of civilization.


Quote:

That Aboriginal societies are/were too weak and powerless to transform their environment

My response was entirely with regards to this statement. I dp not think the Aboriginals are capable of civilization in an advanced sense. I was not making a value judgment about their culture by using the argument that a culture with less complexity than another is objectively inferior to the culture with more. I am incredibly wary about making arguments of this kind, primarily for the reason that I don't care. I do personally think Western civilization is much better, but that's just me.


Quote:

No need to panic about race or anything - as if we haven't panicked in Australia well before the White Australia Policy came into creation.

Note that we're forced to panic a lot more about race now than during the days of the White Australia policy. I see it more and more everytime I am unfortunate enough to catch wind of a news report on the radio or television; but it is true, the America is in its infancy. The United States is the perfect example of a country completely dominated by racial matters. You can't go anywhere there without listening to the moans and groans of some racial group wanting Racial Spoils Package X. People walk on egg-shells daily there to avoid saying something racially insenstive to other people because the consequences of doing so can be serious. Politics and the Humanities are unhealthily obsessed with race. This is a nation that is not only wrought, but in many respects is defined, by racial conflict. The reason for this is obvious; the United States is one of the most racially diverse countries on the planet. Compare this say, to Japan, a country that is bombarded by calls from groups as diverse as economists to racial idelogues to open its borders and accept that diversity is good. The Japanese politely refuse. Is this a country obsessed or in a panic about race? Race is not a matter in Japan. You don't turn on the television set and on a daily basis hear endlessly about Indian students being poorly treated or a bunch of Lebanese and white thugs engaging in turf wars on beaches. That's real panic; not saying no to groups X, Y, and Z and then just going about your business as if it wasn't any problem at all.


Quote:

If you don't have a mind, I guess you're forgiven. They say God protects children and drunks. But if you've got any intelligence at all, you should be able to see the Ku Klux Klan coming a mile away. And if this is what you see as progress, God help us all.

I don't understand this. Am I supposed to tar and feather anybody who differs from the racial orthodoxy as a clandestine Klansmen like all good progressives do, or is it possible that I can openly listen to them and perhaps accept that they may actually have a point? I've said it before and I'll say it again; talk such as mine is effectively banished in 'polite society' and the media because it carries a disturbing amount of weight. If it became acceptable to speak of, the orthodoxy may collapse like a house of cards. This isn't actually a secret though, and you'll hear these justifications spoken about openly. The justifications usually center around the theme that we must silence discussion of race because 'it engenders racial hatred', 'it will damage race relations', 'it will put us on the slippery slope to a Fourth Reich', (they get more extreme from here). Even if this actually was the case (I don't agree), I don't care; give me what is true. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that the currently fashionable theories that form part of the orthodoxy generate incredible racial hatred in themselves. This is more subtle, but it's pretty compelling when explained.


Quote:

But you're right. The "Welfare" had justifications for what they did. What I'm presenting to you is that you're using their very justifications.

What am I making justifications for? I believe in complete freedom of association; I am not espousing mistreatment of the Aboriginal people or taking away children from their parents solely because they are Aboriginal. I don't want that at all.  I actually am in favour of Aboriginal self-determination, though am aware of the problems that would ineluctably ensue from this. I still don't quite know what you think I think.

Out of space in this post

Quote:

You're right. We must talk about these things openly, because if we don't we're doomed. No need to panic, but when some of these policies were enacted on people until the 1980s, it can get a bit close to the bone. Telling them to just get over it can be a tad insensitive. How would you feel if you were removed from your family at birth because of your skin tone?

By "get over it" I was not referring to those affected by the Stolen Generation. I was saying that we need to get the bugger over being afraid to talk about race. The Stolen Generation was not broached within that paragraph at all.


Quote:

I think Westerners are very insecure about their superiority and need others to be superior over.

You're partially right here, but the second part of this statement is incredibly wrong. Westerners -- White people -- are indeed incredibly insecure about themselves. They have been encumbered with an incredible onus that they believe with the most sincerest of conviction; that they are responsible for all of the evils in the world today. It is wrong to suggest that any racial group tends to exhibit general, behavioral characteristics; every group that is, except for white people themselves. White people, or as many more bumptious Aboriginals like to designate them, the white dogs, the white front bottoms, have left behind them a trail of destruction, death and suffering whereever they have been known to have existed throughout history. Through seeming wizardry, the white dogs have utilitzed primitive 19th century extractive technologies to denude entire continents of their natural resources and left these continents nugatory soils as the backbone of their economies after granting them independence. The white dogs are responsible, and only responsible, for the enslavement, conquest and genocide of noble and innocent peoples. There is something innately wicked about the white dogs, in the minds of some of the most extreme whites. For that there is nothing to be proud of and everything to scrutinize and reject. Cultural heroes -- bigots. Cultural practices -- insensitive, antiquated, not suitable or 'pluralist' enough for the new, multicultural society. Bloodline -- immaterial or non-existent. Breed it out.

Yes, this may be hyperbole, but in many respects, it is true. Whites are really the only people in the world who have not only forgotten that the rest of the human race (not including themselves) is essentialy at its core duplicitious, self-interested and parochial, but   that their own dispossession, or in the most extreme cases, their own destruction via miscegnation, is something not only to celebrate but to accelerate. I would like to remind you that this is unprecedented in the entire history of the world. Staggering and incredible, it is like the Frankish Knights at Tours laying to the soil beneath their feet their shields and allowing the Moorish cavalry to hack them to shreds, all while painted with beaming, cheerful countenances.

Whites are insecure or indifferent where other peoples would rise from their chairs in outrage. You're right. Insecure and needing other people to feel superior to, however? No. For some, there is a feeling that they are in fact the best, but it is not motivated by any underlying insecurity. It's normal. Feeling as if your people are the best and your culture is the brightest is fundamentally human. Some whites feel this way, but many, many more Japanese feel this way than most whites do. Even peoples who have never truly achieved anything of any significance feel this way; and attempt to create flimsy justifications for why they do. The 'discipline' of Afrocentrism is basically founded upon taking credit for the achievements of non-African cultures that happened to have been located in Africa. Egyptians? Black! That old myth of Egyptians landing in Greece and founding Greek civilization? Yeah, because the Egyptians were Black thus, Blacks were responsible for the creation of Western Civilization! You would be amazed at how many Black people actually believe this, but the point is it is an example of a people -- even one so bereft of any meaningful impact upon history -- attempting to assert that they are in fact the chosen ones, the greatest ones. What you are describing is normal. However, what you fail to recognize is that white people are at present the least guilty of this 'shortcoming'. Even for a few you would most greatly suspect to be, what they usually are really saying (obviously in a much less respectful fashion) is that "we like our culture the way it is and don't really think it's that much of an enrichment to see women walking around with veiled faces because it is alien, discomforting and something we feel we could never really adjust to (or want to)" or "all other peoples in the world have or currently demand the right to have their own culture evolve as they see fit. Why is it not okay for us to want or have the same?"

Even if that is not the case, the previously discussed shortcoming isn't really a shortcoming. Even if you live in some sh!t hole-in-wall, you can be sure you'll still be on the side-lines at some inconsequential local football match trying to beat you chest harder than the other side, asserting that, where you live, and that your team, is in fact, the best. Don't forget what you are. I for one embrace my primate heritage.

Quote:

If we don't examine our own inferiority complexes - and there are many - we're doomed to be insensitive, dumb, and arrogant.

Given what I said in my previous paragraphs, I think it's more likely we are doomed to non-existence; the termination of our long extending bloodlines and with them, most likely, the disappearence of our unique culture and heritage. Do you think the Pakistani inheritors of the British Isles in five hundred or one thousand years will stare upon the ruins of the pecuiliar vestiges of our long vanished civilization? Who was this strange Horatio Nelson? Who were these men hailing from these inhospitable lands characterised by their harsh winds and falling ice? And most importantly, why should we care?

;)

Thanks for your comprehensive replies, Imperium.

You're saying that, globally, there's a cultural game of King of the Castle going on, where each race struggles to maintain its superiority - so much so that in a few years Pakistanis will have taken over Great Britain and be using Nelson's column for cricket practice.

Well, maybe... What you're forgetting is that civilization is about ideas - not blood. Women in headscarves are just as capable of being citizens as women without. Of course, we know what those scarves represent: the spread of Islam.

And this is the fear I'm talking about. Your posts are about white dying culture, teetering on the brink of oblivion. I don't think it's that black and white. This is the ideology of fear - an ideology that has always been exploited by political zealots everywhere: from Hitler to Mugabe.

I guess it must be strange for someone used to a white-Anglo culture to visit somewhere like Auburn in Sydney and see the Turkish Mosque, the kebab shops, the Vietnamese two-dollar shops, the Lebanese and Islander groceries, Indian spice shops, etc, etc, etc.

This is seen by some as a threat to a "white" way of life. Others see it as the spread of a more global, cosmopolitan and open society. I see it as a sign of confidence - that we're comfortable enough in our own skins to be able to cope with difference.

Sort of. Australia tried the "populate or perish" line, but then settled on a program of immigration. It did this for its own survival in an Asian region. We can't join the EU (as the Liberal Party wanted to do in the late 1980s). Australia is an Asian-Pacific country with a black, indigenous history. This is reality. It would be ridiculous  to attempt to create an Aparteid state in Australia, or some white outpost of a dying empire.

We aren't a multicultural society because of some leftie-academic ideal. The Liberals, under Malcolm Fraser, created the basis of multicultural policy. Back in the 1980s, we still had a manufacturing sector with a need for labour. Multiculturalism was established because the Menzies policy of assimilation at the time did not work with the new influxes of largely Asian people.

The feeling that you're doomed to non-existence is an existential question. "Our" culture and heritage have changed so much over time, and with contact with so many different cultures that, really, there is nothing timeless or "unique" about it.

Civilization has changed since Rome, thank God.

I think you're arguing, in a post-colonial world, for a return to a colonial world. It's not possible. Sure, Kipling and Nelson would be turning in their graves, but the world's moved on. I'm sure Mao would be turning in his grave at the notion of a capitalist China. India and China are the newly emerging super-economies. We're not the British Empire anymore.

Personally, I don't think we need to talk about race - particularly in the biological, eugenic way the Nazis thought about it. Culture is different. Culturally, there is little difference in a second or third generation Asian person to a white person. Likewise, in the Third Reich, there was often no discernible difference between Germans and non-practicing Jews. Jewish WWI war heroes were sent to the gas chambers along with the rest.

This fear of biological contamination of "pure" blood is a complete myth. It represents a lack of confidence in your own values, and highlights a deep-seated fear of difference.

I can understand this fear, but I don't share it. I've met people with more love, courage and compassion in "other" races than I've ever met in a Neo Nazi.

And this fear I mention relates to this thread on Aboriginal culture. Aboriginals didn't just "die" off to make way for the progress and prosperity of white people. Their culture was systematically erradicated because of the fear we had - obviously have -  of difference. Like lions, we killed the cubs of the previous generation in order to fill our territory with our own offspring.

The difference, after the "black line" days, is that we saught to breed it out, and then culturally assimilate it. Hence, the rise of "Aboriginal culture" threatens those who wanted to see it dead and buried.

I can see a lot that's good about Western civilization but, to be honest, I really can't see what's great or noble about a white "bloodline." This, to me, is just Nazism - and like I said - is the cause of the very problem you're seeking to address.

Thing that gets me is that Australia is non-racial, yet some races are favoured.
(Are you Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander???)

Why don’t we tell it like it is, or stop paying shoe money, stop giving no interest or low fixed interest loans, or stop making Aboriginal Health Clinics and few more.

Quote:

What you're forgetting is that civilization is about ideas - not blood.

This is the common 'culture-shortcut' argument that is utilized to get around what in reality, primarily accounts for differences in civilizaitons; the underlying biological structures of the people that create those civilizations. It is absurd to suggest that civilization has absolutely no relation to who we are and how we behave; such a proposal is almost like saying that cultures just fall out of the sky randomly and whoever happens to find them first gets them. Come on now -- civilization is about concepts, but who creates and applies concepts? People do. And what people are like is in large part determined by their genetic code. What kind of civilization perhaps,  created by a group of people entirely afflicted by 'blood' (DNA) with severe mental retardation be like? Extreme example, but perfect for this point.  There are plenty of factors that determine how a civilization will turn out; how we are wired to behave being one of them, perhaps the most important of them. I am tired of having to make this argument over and over again because you seem to ignore it every time.


Quote:

Of course, we know what those scarves represent: the spread of Islam.

Precisely, and many people don't want that here. Why should they?


Quote:

And this is the fear I'm talking about. Your posts are about white dying culture, teetering on the brink of oblivion.

There is nothing wrong with calling alarm when it may be legitmate to do so. The replacement of White culture and White people with some foreign inheritor will not only be unfortunate for the reasons I have already laid forth, but in many places things will become much worse in ways that you will not even deny. Let us take the United States for example -- a country that is currently being inundanted with Mexican immigrants both legal and illegal that are simply transforming regions for the worse. Mexicans bring with them all of the attendant problems that plague Mexico (they themselves are the reason for these problems) -- high rates of illegitmacy, criminality, premature high school departure, etc. This doesn't even include the relational problems that tend to arise in multiracial societies. Things don't get better with new, nationally born generations either. To suggest that it is always silly to be fearful when your suspect your government may just be creating through its policies a society that is considerably crummier than what was there before and to object to this is just another progressive tactic used to silence debate, by making the progressive (who is himself not loath to fearmongering) appear level headed and rational, while presenting his opponents as alarmist and paranoid.


Quote:

This is seen by some as a threat to a "white" way of life. Others see it as the spread of a more global, cosmopolitan and open society. .

In what way, really, are ethnic enclaves and ultimately fractured peoples all living under the same roof examples of an open and cosmpolitian society? When certain groups are allowed to reach a population level of a certain amount, they therefore have the ability to forego the choice to interact that much with people unlike them. And that is what happens. When left to themselves, and when able to do so, people prefer and choose the company of people like themselves. The new multicultural, multiracial ethos hasn't really changed this that much. We're more fractured, less trusting (look up the Robert Putnam studies if you're interested -- would like to remind you that this particular researcher tried to hide his research after it turned out it didn't reveal what he wanted it to); afflicted by the very sorts of things you would expect to spring up when you deliberately make a society less related to itself, less literally like a family. This does not sound like openness to me. It doesn't sound like confidence either. We're less confident in ourselves to allow it to happen, and besides the fact that people appear so over the moon by the fact that you can get Lebanese food and Chinese food in the same food-court (!!!!!!) the effect of multiracialism and multiculturalism on a lot of citizens really just concerns having more places not to purchase real-estate in if affordable, though other effects depend upon the immigrant group you're dealing with and the people who are ending up with them in their neighbourhoods.


Quote:

The feeling that you're doomed to non-existence is an existential question. "Our" culture and heritage have changed so much over time, and with contact with so many different cultures that, really, there is nothing timeless or "unique" about it.

That's like saying because the particular paintings of an artist are influenced by a multitude of previous artists, therefore, there is nothing original within his work. There is little to nothing that exists within the world today that is truly an original creation; are completely original thoughts even possible? Western civilization, like any other, is an amalgamation of various things, many endemic to the West, some introduced via other cultures. It is the mixture itself that is unique and special.

Out of space, continued in next post

Fight for Cultural Equality: UN Okays Cannibalism, Slavery
By Will Beria


The Intergovernmental Cultural Climate Change Panel (ICCCP) declared its support for the recent UN announcement that all cultures are equally valid. Expanding on the resolution the group declared the rights of people are now culturally defined, rather than being based on any universal notion or concept. They suggest the term "human rights" is therefore both outmoded and racist as it would impose value for human life which some cultures don't accept. They recommended the term "multi-cultural peoples' rights" be used instead.

"We take the announcement to mean our practices of torture, vendetta, and suppression of women and minorities dating back centuries have now been recognized as just different cultures different ways of doing things differently," said ICCCP spokesman Moussa Stache. "This measure will finally legitimize the long-sought revival of some of our members' traditional practices of cannibalism, slavery, head-hunting, and human sacrifice. Every society has rights to human rites."

~
After the announcement there was hand shaking and gift giving all around the chamber until it was pointed out this principle could be taken as validating Jewish culture as well. The members hurriedly reconvened, working around the clock for a work-around. The following day the panel declared Zionism a criminal conspiracy and not culture as recognized by the UN. As such, Judaism and Jews are to be reclassified as sub-UN.

Explained Moussa Stache, "There are no inferior cultures, but there are inferior people."


http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=4642

Would stealing them be the answer?

"A 13-YEAR-OLD Aboriginal boy who savagely raped an elderly woman in her home and tried to indecently assault another is an example of a system failing indigenous youths, a Victorian magistrate says.

In a passionate submission to a national inquiry into the massive over-representation of Aboriginal youths in the criminal justice system, Latrobe Valley magistrate Edwin Batt said boys like the recently sentenced Victorian rapist faced court all too often."


He said that 100 per cent of young people that appeared before him did not go to school.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 10:37am:

Would stealing them be the answer? "A 13-YEAR-OLD Aboriginal boy who savagely raped an elderly woman in her home and tried to indecently assault another is an example of a system failing indigenous youths, a Victorian magistrate says. In a passionate submission to a national inquiry into the massive over-representation of Aboriginal youths in the criminal justice system, Latrobe Valley magistrate Edwin Batt said boys like the recently sentenced Victorian rapist faced court all too often." He said that 100 per cent of young people that appeared before him did not go to school.

"Stealing" them wouldn't do anything. Community Services can do very little with adolescent boys, especially Aboriginal kids, who often return to kinship placements with friends/relatives or just go "walkabout."

The question I'd pose - without the easy smearing or reaction to leftie/liberal ideas on race - is what would you do?

Given that incarceration of youth does nothing to prevent crime - that Community Services in itself cannot prevent anyone from comitting a crime - that the system as a whole organises/labels the poor and dysfunctional as "perpetrators", then "criminals", and these problems are then passed on through generations...

Adding an average $200,000 price tag per year for each prisoner. And rising.

What would you do? Bring back corporal punishment? Mandatory sentencing? The death penalty?

The real political question - beyond having a good whinge - is what should be done?

This question requires having a ground knowledge of the problems, knowing the people who make decisions, knowing how government/community relationships work at the local level, and knowing the very people you're talking about - this is real politics, not the sort of crank fantasies that fill the airwaves.

The dog whistle is easily blown - much harder to come up with a solution.

I'm not saying you CAN'T come up with a solution. Mind you, I know I can't. Personally, I don't even talk about issues I don't know about (like global warming, for example). What can I add to something I know nothing about?

I know very little about chronic and endemic Aboriginal problems in this country. I've never been to a remote Aboriginal community, for example. I can understand why things are so buggered up, but I don't know much about the hows.

The solution a few in this thread have proposed is quiet assimilation into white culture. Or just anger, which is no solution at all. Given the moves in Aboriginal politics and land rights since the 1970s, I don't think the first solution is politically possible.

You could suggest that bikers should give up their colours and sell off the clubhouses, but that's not going to happen either. You could tell the gays to give up the Mardi Gras.

The problem is that until serious crime is committed, people have liberties. And even after crime is committed, the gangs still exist in the jails. I'm not suggesting that Aboriginality exists in the same discourse as criminality, but I am saying that whatever you do, I doubt they'll go easily. Aboriginal people still exist.

So what do you do?

casterate the rapists

You mean castigate, sprinty?

Oh. I thought he meant caste-rate.

As in "very low caste, possibly an octoroon. Protruding forehead, flattened nose, evidence of biological contamination of the lowest order."

Big Donger wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 10:34am:

The question I'd pose - without the easy smearing or reaction to leftie/liberal ideas on race - is what would you do?

If I may be permitted to butt in, my suggestion would be to provide an alternative to gaol.

Let's call the alternative a place called "Outside", to which judges can choose to send repeat offenders. "Outside" would be as securely fenced-in as a gaol but would be a much larger place consisting of a town, some forest, and some agricultural land somewhere in country Australia. "Outside" as a whole would be capable of being self-sufficient, but goods could be imported into there by inmates who owned enough money in Australia.

Someone sentenced to "Outside" would be free to do whatever he wanted. There would be no Australian police to harrass him or protect him, no Australian government presence to hinder or help him, just a lovely place to live where he could choose to live as a hermit, revert to Aboriginal customary ways, co-operate with others to form a government, or anything else, without the rest of Australia knowing or caring.

The rest of Australia would not care about what happened "Outside" because the Australian media would be kept out. A system would be set up so that anyone sentenced to "Outside" could eventually qualify for re-admission to Australia by proving he had a good knowledge of and respect for Australia's laws, plus sufficient skills to earn a living without support. Consideration could be given to allowing unconvicted Australian citizens to choose to migrate to "Outside" if they found the idea of freedom from government attractive.

Would this not be a humane way of removing misfits from society?

Big Donger wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 10:34am:

So what do you do?

As Paddy said to the hitchhiker who wanted to go to Dublin. "I wouldn't start from here'.

Similarly, I would change the point from which the sitution is to be changed.

Everyone in this country is largely responsible for his lot. Except remote area Aborigines. They are inplicitly treated like some sort of protected species, with a lesser ability to direct their own lives.

I would remove children from families that do not feed them, do not send them to school, do not look after them. I would reintroduce penalties for drunken and isorderly behaviour (quitely removed some years agoi bcause Aborigines were caught out by it in grossly disproportionate numbrs.) The penalty is removed but of course the runken and disorderly behaviour by Aborigines has grown steadily.

I would shame Aboriginal 'elders' for keeping their 'people' in squalor and ignorance. I would not pay them to sit in the dust, piseed out of their minds.


Afetr 200 years, there is no excuse for Aborigines in remote areas living they way they do. If they want to be stone age people, they do not need welfare money. They can roam, hunt, fish and let the world pass by. If they want welfare, they need to join the socity that provided it. Have a shower, get a haircut, get  job.

Would any of you give your kids money just so he can stay in his room and get pissed in front of the tele week in, week out? And blame you for the stink in his room?

Soren wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 5th, 2010 at 10:34am: So what do you do? As Paddy said to the hitchhiker who wanted to go to Dublin. "I wouldn't start from here'. Similarly, I would change the point from which the sitution is to be changed. Everyone in this country is largely responsible for his lot. Except remote area Aborigines. They are inplicitly treated like some sort of protected species, with a lesser ability to direct their own lives. I would remove children from families that do not feed them, do not send them to school, do not look after them. I would reintroduce penalties for drunken and isorderly behaviour (quitely removed some years agoi bcause Aborigines were caught out by it in grossly disproportionate numbrs.) The penalty is removed but of course the runken and disorderly behaviour by Aborigines has grown steadily. I would shame Aboriginal 'elders' for keeping their 'people' in squalor and ignorance. I would not pay them to sit in the dust, piseed out of their minds. Afetr 200 years, there is no excuse for Aborigines in remote areas living they way they do. If they want to be stone age people, they do not need welfare money. They can roam, hunt, fish and let the world pass by. If they want welfare, they need to join the socity that provided it. Have a shower, get a haircut, get  job. Would any of you give your kids money just so he can stay in his room and get pissed in front of the tele week in, week out? And blame you for the stink in his room?

Unfortunately, Soren, you'd be hemmed in by the anti-discrimination act.

Or you'd have to bring back all these rules for everyone else as well.

I'm quibbling, but - sadly - children can't be removed for not going to school. This would never get past a magistrate (and you're right, especially an Aboriginal child). If you want to fill up jails, bring back Drunk and Disorderly laws and set up police stations as motels for drunks.

But is all this shaming, penalizing and incarcerating really a way to change people? If you do this sort of thing, you end up needing programs that do the opposite and deinstitutionalise people - like the adolescents removed and placed in residential care.

Otherwise, you create more rapists, more murderers, and more angry people in general. What you end up doing is creating more crime - not less.

All good ideas, of course, but I think most have been tried and failed.

The central idea is - they must take responsibility for themselves. And I say this because I do think that is in their best interest.
White fella, aboriginal 'elders', government -they are all focusing on themselves. If a Vietnamese refugee can, and have, make a go of it, Aboriginese have no excuses left. It is entirely up to them.

I feel no sorry for the ones living in squalor and sniffing pettrol, at all. I do feel very supportive towards the ones who have made a go of it. That's all it takes.

There should be no welfare until people have contributed first. That should be the rule for youth, immigrants, aboriginese, the unemployed. The sick and the orphaned are excepted.  Put in before you take out. Can't be fairer than that.

Soren wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

The central idea is - they must take responsibility for themselves.

If you took a look at the suggestion I posted earlier today you might agree that I provided for that and a lot more. So far nobody has dared suggest it couldn't work.

Quote:

Let's call the alternative a place called "Outside", to which judges can choose to send repeat offenders. "Outside" would be as securely fenced-in as a gaol but would be a much larger place consisting of a town, some forest, and some agricultural land somewhere in country Australia. "Outside" as a whole would be capable of being self-sufficient, but goods could be imported into there by inmates who owned enough money in Australia.

::)

"Agricultural land". So when we send all of these repeat-offender aboriginals to this hermetically sealed community, you think all of them are going to take up the hoe and plough and start becoming productive citizens? This is possibly the most ridiculous solution I have ever heard -- these people, these repeat offender aborignals, are without a doubt the scum of the earth. They represent some of the worst of the worst in terms of the whole of the human species, and evidently viewing from their life experiences, they have little to no interest in being productive. Self-sufficient?? Just a little reminder; 90% of farms owned by blacks in South Africa are now (after being redistributed from productive white farmers) non-producing and bleeding money. Many of these new farmers surely did not have criminal records or checkered pasts; yet they do not produce. The situation will be even worse for Aboriginals not only with no agricultural skills, but derived from prisons as well. They will go hungry within weeks, and that's if they have not all killed each other beforehand.


Quote:

, just a lovely place to live where he could choose to live as a hermit, revert to Aboriginal customary ways, co-operate with others to form a government, or anything else, without the rest of Australia knowing or caring.

A lovely place? :( :( :( You are planning to create hell on earth. I am in favour of Aboriginal self-determination actually, but I do realize that by doing so I am likely dooming those who would be interested in taking part to a society resembling Africa in our midst (perhaps worse). What kind of government do you think a bunch of repeat-offending aboriginals are going to create? Even Aboriginals without criminal records would create a society that no sane white person in their dare mind would ever want to set foot, but taking the worst of their own stock and letting them 'go at it'? Pure folly.


Quote:

Would this not be a humane way of removing misfits from society?

It's actually in some ways, ominously brilliant. It's like Auschwitz without the gas-ovens. Throw them all in and let them kill each other off without us needing to. Point is, if that's the inevitable end result, why bother going to all that trouble and money to put the infrastructure on the ground when we can just shoot them all?

Your idea is silly also because it assumes that maintaing 'Outside' will be less expensive than just keeping them locked up. Provided that this project makes use of a relatively large area of land, maintaining security around its perimeter might cost a fortune. There'll be thousands of attempted breakouts -- why would these guys want to stay in this ineluctable hellhole?

I'm sure I saw a science fiction movie like this once. Was it Escape From New York, Mad Max II, Farenheit 451?

All dystopias. Actually, the Russians used to do this with ex-political prisoners. They called it exile.

Here are some ways that I think would ameliorate the Aboriginal situation (note that I didn't say 'solve'; there is a reason for this).

Educational Reform

First step must begin with the schools. This need not even apply just to Aboriginals, though it will involve them with much greater frequency. Education for most Aboriginal children with concerns to 'academic' subject matter (the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic) will be tailored in such a way that higher-level mental functions such as inference and conceptual application will need to be utilized at a minimum -- instead, intensive rote memorization will be employed, and the amount of time at school focused on these subjects will be considerably less than it is now. Basic life skills will be thoroughly drilled into their heads, and other government branches will work to help further eliminate novelty with regards to these skills by harmonizing their services and functions with what has been taught. For instance, the 'example' bus timetable that was used to instruct a child on how to read one will be the same found as the actual one found everywhere else in real life. This increases familarity and reduces novelty -- making things easier for those that adhere to predictable routines and have difficulty processing unfamiliarity.

As shown, education far sooner than now will be made 'hands on' -- oriented towards the development of vocational and athletic abilities. Sports will be played frequently and Aboriginal students will be examined carefully for the existence of any potential favourable innate athletic abilities that could allow them to excel at sports on a professional level. Workplace skills will be built up over a long period of time during primary and secondary schooling so that Aboriginal students leaving in, say, Yr. 10, will be more than ready to enter the workplace performing rewarding physical work. Instead of wasting years and years at school learning nothing and being disruptive, the vast majority of time will be spent preparing for comfortable existences as workers. Of course, this will be optional, but many Aboriginal students (and whites as well, of course), will see early vocational schooling as more enjoyable -- and yes, more rewarding (financially and mentally) for them in the long run, than the academic track. The point is to have a wider selection of academic tracks than available to students now -- which currently attempts to fit far too many triangles into square holes. We are not all of the same mental competence, so education should naturally be centered around this fact.

Free-lunches will be provided for students at schools to further build up the body and the mind. Good bush tucker like Kangaroo meat and highly nutritious endemic plants can be offered to Aboriginal and white students; not only are these foodstuffs extremely healthy, but will likely be appealing to indigenous students who may feel that their consumption would be a way to create a meaningful link between themselves and their ancient blood.

There will be no affirmative action whatsoever in higher education, and standards will be made more rigorous than they are now. Students who have proven themselves to be competent will have this alternative available to them -- those that have not, will not recieve "leg-ups" to grant them it. This is deleterious not just to the minds of men, but to the national purse and our educational standards as well.

Will write more later

Aboriginal children need exactly the same education as any other child - a good grasp of English, as much maths as they can handle, and the ability to focus and concentrate as long as possible, especially if it's something  'boring'.

And they must be removed from those camps. They are a bloody disgrace.

I cannot recommend Roger Sandall enough on these matter.

http://www.rogersandall.com/category/indigenes/

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

So when we send all of these repeat-offender aboriginals to this hermetically sealed community, you think all of them are going to take up the hoe and plough and start becoming productive citizens?

If you were capable of understanding new ideas Imperium, you would realize I suggested no such thing.  The land is there to provide inmates with the opportunity, which some might try. If they don't, that's their choice and there are alternatives.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

They will go hungry within weeks, and that's if they have not all killed each other beforehand.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  They may have inherited survival instincts that would surprise you. It's their choice anyway, so why should we be concerned?


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

I am in favour of Aboriginal self-determination actually, but I do realize that by doing so I am likely dooming those who would be interested in taking part to a society resembling Africa in our midst .

"Outside" may resemble a small part of Africa, but so what? It would be only a small part of Australia really, would be fenced off so as not to affect us, and in many respects would be far better than gaol, which otherwise is your only alternative, a proven failure.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

Provided that this project makes use of a relatively large area of land, maintaining security around its perimeter might cost a fortune.

You're guessing. Security will not be free of course, but by using electronic perimeter surveillance together with a mobile guard force, the manpower required would be no more than for a regular prison. Bear in mind too, that Outside is intended as a last resort, for people on whom all your other measures have failed.

Quote:

The land is there to provide inmates with the opportunity, which some might try. If they don't, that's their choice and there are alternatives.

Would we be providing them with agricultural equipment and training as well? The agricultural component of this particular plan would be an abject failure, there is no doubt about that. And how much money do you expect worst-of-the-worst Aboriginal criminals to have?


Quote:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  They may have inherited survival instincts that would surprise you

Survival instincts they might have, but the relevant hunter-gatherer skills built upon these instincts necessary to to survive in such an environment require long periods of time to develop -- and assistance.

I would like to make it clear however that I agree with you; I am not concerned with these people at all. I just don't understand the purpose of your suggested experiment. You just said that it would likely cost the same amount of money as jail (or more) for us and would likely have no perceptible effect on their reformation. The kind of people who keep on ending up back in prison time and time again and show no positive response in any method intended to reform them are of an incorrigble nature; they are psychopaths to their very cores, and likely of dangerously subnormal general intelligence. So, with this knowledge, why send them off to this location when we can just keep them in prison permanently at the same or a lesser cost, shoot, or enslave them?


Quote:

. Security will not be free of course, but by using electronic perimeter surveillance together with a mobile guard force, the manpower required would be no more than for a regular prison. Bear in mind too, that Outside is intended as a last resort, for people on whom all your other measures have failed.

The area you described that would be employed for this project would likely be of extensive size. Given that prisons can concentrate large numbers of people into relatively small areas, surveillance on their perimeters would likely be much less expensive than an area containing agricultural land, woodlands and a 'town' (meaning more area per capita than a prison would afford). Again, even if you could make this cost just as much as the current method, what is the purpose? You care about these people as little as I do; thus, doing away with them completely is the best solution here.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

I would like to make it clear however that I agree with you... I just don't understand the purpose of your suggested experiment.

Good.  Let's continue to discuss this for a while then, and try to work it up to being a viable proposal.

I initially made the suggestion in response to an earlier post in which the writer asked "what would you do" after describing some hopeless case repeat offender. It's a question I have heard asked over many years, and it's about time some answer was found.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

Would we be providing them with agricultural equipment and training as well?

I don't think providing equipment is necessary, as the sort of farming inmates might be expected to do would be subsistence level only. The land/soil/water supply need to be good enough to support agriculture though. It is not good enough to be pushed onto some barren wasteland, which has often been the Aborigine's lot in the past.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

The agricultural component of this particular plan would be an abject failure, there is no doubt about that.

Depends on whether you set your expectations too high.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

And how much money do you expect worst-of-the-worst Aboriginal criminals to have?

None, or nearly so. I would not expect welfare payments to be made to the inmates of Outside.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

Survival instincts they might have, but the relevant hunter-gatherer skills built upon these instincts necessary to to survive in such an environment require long periods of time to develop -- and assistance.

The assistance I envisage would be provided for a limited startup period only (perhaps 6 months), after which enough inmates should have been trained to be the ongoing trainers themselves. If they have not their future seems bleak, but it's their choice.


aikmann4 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

why send them off to this location when we can just keep them in prison permanently at the same or a lesser cost, shoot, or enslave them?

I don't think you could get public acceptance of shooting or enslavement, but you might get acceptance of an unpoliced self-sufficient gaol, where the inmates survive, prosper, or die according to their own choices and efforts.

Outside would be much cheaper than keeping people in gaol indefinitely. Inmates would be responsible for providing their own meals. Outside would not be provided with TV, sporting facilities, libraries, telephones, and other costly items found in normal gaols.  Medical treatment, dentistry, and the like would be provided under the user pays principle.

Actually, the Greeks believed civilization ended outside the city walls.

Hence, laws only applied within city limits. Gods too.

This may help to explain all those stories about monsters. On the outside, there was no order, and no social order.

This idea lived on through the European age of exploration, and eventually, here in Australia, to the notion of terra nullius. Australia was originally "outside."

You still see this idea when backpackers come to Australia. This modern pilgrimage (the gap year) is about leaving civilization and getting as pissed, and having as much sex, as you can.

So, to many Europeans, Australia is the outside.

fawkes wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 5th, 2010 at 10:34am: The question I'd pose - without the easy smearing or reaction to leftie/liberal ideas on race - is what would you do? If I may be permitted to butt in, my suggestion would be to provide an alternative to gaol. Let's call the alternative a place called "Outside", to which judges can choose to send repeat offenders. "Outside" would be as securely fenced-in as a gaol but would be a much larger place consisting of a town, some forest, and some agricultural land somewhere in country Australia. "Outside" as a whole would be capable of being self-sufficient, but goods could be imported into there by inmates who owned enough money in Australia. Someone sentenced to "Outside" would be free to do whatever he wanted. There would be no Australian police to harrass him or protect him, no Australian government presence to hinder or help him, just a lovely place to live where he could choose to live as a hermit, revert to Aboriginal customary ways, co-operate with others to form a government, or anything else, without the rest of Australia knowing or caring. The rest of Australia would not care about what happened "Outside" because the Australian media would be kept out. A system would be set up so that anyone sentenced to "Outside" could eventually qualify for re-admission to Australia by proving he had a good knowledge of and respect for Australia's laws, plus sufficient skills to earn a living without support. Consideration could be given to allowing unconvicted Australian citizens to choose to migrate to "Outside" if they found the idea of freedom from government attractive. Would this not be a humane way of removing misfits from society?

You mean a reservation. A kind of Aboriginal Lord of the Flies.

That, or Fantasy Island.

The plane! The plane!

Soren wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 8:22am:

Aboriginal children need exactly the same education as any other child - a good grasp of English, as much maths as they can handle, and the ability to focus and concentrate as long as possible, especially if it's something  'boring'. And they must be removed from those camps. They are a bloody disgrace. I cannot recommend Roger Sandall enough on these matter. http://www.rogersandall.com/category/indigenes/

I read what Roger Sandall has to say on these matters. He makes a lot of sense. I'd also say a lot of Aboriginal people would agree with much of what he says. Some, anyway.

"People reading about the Nazi period in Germany often wonder how the most cultured nation in Europe could fall so low. But we might just as well ask how Aboriginal life has come to this, in 2006, in a humane democracy like Australia. Is there a perverse and deluded theory of social order, and of the moral requirements of Aboriginal life specifically, that explains why Australians are both paralysed by these horrors and quite unable to move on? Can there be a semi-official theory about Aborigines, land, and culture, along with a fixation on the past, that makes it difficult for policy-makers to conceive of necessary change?"

Unfortunately, however, Sandall doesn't really have any solutions either, except to remove Aboriginals from outback settlements, put kids into boarding schools, and stop romanticising "culture."

As he says, you can't educate kids in the classroom when they receive different messages in the broader community. This is the problem: the Enlightenment value of education is not working to change Aboriginal conditions or values - at least at the primary school level. And if you don't finish primary school...

As Sandall also points out, making reference to Marx, you can't have people living in conditions where there's no economic activity.

We can, of course, include hunting/gatherering as economic activity, but that's not how it works in many outback Aboriginal communities. The economic activity is often between a white-managed store and Aboriginal people using welfare benefits. As Noel Pearson point out, this is not a "real economy," and such a "sit-down" mentality is the reason of much of the disadvantage in Aboriginal communities.

These factors are why we have the problem of Aboriginal disadvantage in Aboriginal communities, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sandall wants blacks to forget history. Unfortunately, much of the modern "history" only goes back one or two generations. In some desert communities, Aboriginals first came into contact with whites in the 1960s. Many of the problems in outback communities stem from the cataclysmic change from an indigenous hunter/gatherer lifestyle to - what? The policies have changed so much.

From Aboriginals being, in many places, hunted and killed, to being rounded up and placed in missions, to living and working on stations for rations, and after the '67 referendum, to being granted equal wages and being made redundant.

And only then to the welfare state.

This excludes the policies of the stolen generation, which placed intergenerational scar tissue on many families, and which Sandall also aknowledges.

You can't forget the past, but obviously, if you don't move on, you're lost. The challenge for the current federal and state governments is not necessarily how to right the wrongs of the past, but how to fix things now in a way that is sensitive to the past.

If you don't, you'll face the same problems, time and time again.

As I've said before in this thread, if all you do is belittle, bludgeon and berate, all you'll get is more alcoholism, petrol-sniffing, child abuse and neglect.

True change comes about through engagement, empowerment and enthusiasm. You can imprison entire generations (and we have) - but what are the results?

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 9:17am:

The plane! The plane!

Ho Ho, you two are so funny! You have no alternative to offer other than expensive gaols that evidently achieve little, yet jokes are all you have to say.  Your later posts indicate you don't even have any plans for preventing the bulk of Aborigines ending up in trouble for law breaking. Pathetic!

fawkes wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 9:17am: The plane! The plane! Ho Ho, you two are so funny! You have no alternative to offer other than expensive gaols that evidently achieve little, yet jokes are all you have to say.  Your later posts indicate you don't even have any plans for preventing the bulk of Aborigines ending up in trouble for law breaking. Pathetic!

You're so right, Fawkes. I work in an area where I see many of these problems. The solutions we use all take time, and are very hit and miss. At the policy level, I don't think we've conceptualised the problems well enough. At the social level, we have an increasing disparity between rich and poor, and this creates tension that causes crime. But we also have a consumer society - this makes people want more and more things. What to do?

Remember when juvenille conferencing was the big thing? It can work with some kids, but it's a bit on the slide now. I don't have any easy solutions for entrenched Aboriginal problems. As I said, I think you need to know the problems at the community level and not create federal (and often politically simplistic) solutions.

So, yes. Guilty as charged. Pathetic's a bit harsh, but you may well be right.

fawkes wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 9:17am: The plane! The plane! Ho Ho, you two are so funny! You have no alternative to offer other than expensive gaols that evidently achieve little, yet jokes are all you have to say.  Your later posts indicate you don't even have any plans for preventing the bulk of Aborigines ending up in trouble for law breaking. Pathetic!

I am sorry, I didn't realise that this was an actual Aboriginal policy forum. I though it was just a place where plebs can vent.

If I had known it was in our gift to 'offer solutions' I would have deployed my staff and put my advice on letterhead, with invoice for consultancy fees attached.

A big misunderstanding by me. Not funny. Apologies.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

fawkes wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 12:35pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 9:17am: The plane! The plane! Ho Ho, you two are so funny! You have no alternative to offer other than expensive gaols that evidently achieve little, yet jokes are all you have to say.  Your later posts indicate you don't even have any plans for preventing the bulk of Aborigines ending up in trouble for law breaking. Pathetic! I am sorry, I didn't realise that this was an actual Aboriginal policy forum. I though it was just a place where plebs can vent.

Yes - and I didn't realize this site is an actual politics forum.

I thought it was a place where people can come to spew their bile all over the internet.

Very helpful!

What the world need now is more bile.

Actually, this is a sub forum related to multiculturalism, this is a thread discussion on aboriginal culture. Not a spew your prejudice forum.

Is this a 5 minute argument or the full 15?