After having debated with persons about the indigenous peoples, and noting their somewhat irrational beliefs about the causes of their plight, I thought that I would give a little lesson in the history of human development to those who are struggling to understand.

First, all advanced countries in the world today are fully-industrialised economies. What is industrialisation? It refers to the transition of the economy and society from a primarily agricultural one to an industrial one. Industralisation essentially allows societies to produce more than they consume.

But, in order to become an industrialised society, certain pre-conditions have to be met. First, we all started off as hunter-gatherers and then some societies began to develop agriculture. What is the importance of agriculture? It allowed for something know as a 'food surplus' - i.e. for the first time in human history, human beings were producing more food than they consumed. This resulted in development of sedentary societies, leading to cities. Cities mean more population, which means more organisation is required, and this is when hierarchies occur. More trades are developed, and as society becomes complex, writing is required to ensure that these societies function properly.

One of the key components of a civilisation is 'centralisation' - i.e. the establishment of a centralised authority that rules over a vast area. A centralised authority has the coercive institutions necessary to tax, spend and mobilise people for war. It also ensures the proper organisation of society. Early examples of a centralised civilisations were the Assyrians, Egyptians and Persians. The Greek were somewhat an exception to this rule, ruling in city-states instead (but would explain why they were eventually subjugated).

Early empires then developed into feudalism, which in some way eroded the central state but began to enshrine the idea of private property, complex agriculture, and further entrenched social classes.

The necessary prerequisite of industrialisation therefore is feudalism. If you look at Japan, they met this condition because they were feudal, as does China.

In the case of the indigenous peoples of Australia and of the Americas (with the exception of Mesoamerican and Incas), they retained their hunter-gatherer status and did not have the necessary geographical conditions to progress to complex agriculture.

According to Jared Diamond, cows or 'beasts of burden' were a requirement to develop complex agriculture. No beasts of burden ever existed on the Australian continent or on the American continent. Cows were unique to the Eurasian continent. The ability to have surplus agriculture leads to a complex civilization.

Now, I would like to make it clear that just because the indigenous peoples didn't progress further, it doesn't mean that they are inferior to us, nor does it justify mistreatment or disdain from us. Old theories about racial superiority were and continue to be wrong. The differences are geographical, not racial. In later stages its institutions that matter, but that is another thing.
--------------
So, to those who say: "well, the aboriginals have had 200 odd years to change," think about this.

Homo sapiens dominated the earth around 10,000BC. The first complex cities developed in Sumeria around 5000 BC, with the first empire being the Akkadians under Sargon the Great in 2000s BC. The earliest actually prolonged empire was the Assyrians.

So, it took from 10,000BC to around 2500BC (7500 years) for human beings to develop from a hunter-gatherer society to the early stages of a complex society.

If you then talk about industrialisation which ocurred in the late 1700s, then it from 2500BC to 1700 AD (4000 years +) to progress from an early empire to an industrialised society (going through feudalism along the way).

So, expecting that the indigenous peoples progress from a hunter-gatherer existence to an industrialised society without meeting any of the prerequisites within 200 + years is complete folly, especially when it took the West more than 7000 years to get to this stage!!

So, let's try to get a little perspective, shall we?

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:


Yes, we should.

The other thing we should do is not attribute their plight to 'laziness'.

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:


What if they're suffering from a mental illness but don't know it?

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:24pm:


1 in 5 people in the country suffer from mental illnesses, most of whom KNOW they have it. And many of them have access to care. Most indigenous people don't.

Second, what if they don't know how to live life? If they've been raised in an indigenous community all their life, then it stands to reason that they may struggle to integrate into broader society.

You have to think of Indigenous people like a foreigner to another country. They need to go through the process of integrating into the society.

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:44pm:


Exactly, you got it! So, if it's alienating for you, you have to imagine how much worse it is for them. They don't have the social capital needed to succeed in society.

People like Valkie and Grappler have had the social capital to succeed, and have been properly socialized into Australian society. It's a completely different ball game when you can integrate into the society you've been raised into.

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:54pm:


Not if you don't have the capacity to make rational choices. We assume that we're all capable of making rational choices, but we take for granted the institutions around us as everyday citizens.

You personally would've been more endowed with the social capital necessary to get yourself out of pickles; but many indigenous peoples don't have the social capital: their communities and families are broken down.

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

It doesn't hurt to have a little compassion. Suspicion is always necessary when dealing with anyone but on the same foot it doesn't hurt to try and understand your opponent even more so at the same time... he might be a good fella you never know?

Auggie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:22pm:

Is trauma a mental illness?

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:44pm:

True, but a little compassion toward an oppressed community never hurt anyone.

They went to war for this country and couldn't drink in the pub: that's simply not cricket!

My ancestors came out here in chains as slaves. You can only use your ancestors plight for so long. The government is too afraid to mess with the aborigines because they'll end up getting labelled as meddlers . The stolen generation politics has killed that of. It's up to them now. It's up to them to seek help. It's up to them to feed their kids. It's up to them to limit the drink. The reality is that nobody is going to help them unless they seek it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 4:26pm:


Come again? I thought slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in the 1830s??

Auggie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:52pm:


Man .... you gotta be rich to even think that way..... 

Auggie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:14pm:




You're a trick .... you .... you. 

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 4:23pm:


Poor opinion.

There is a difference between living in the past & not learning from things in the past.

Aboriginals have difficulty with the later .... and so do you.

No one alive today is witness to anyone being slaughtered.

The knowledge of the past is being used to justify the failings in the present.

The perpetuation of the guilt & victim industry.

Auggie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 5:37pm:


Here's your sign ......

Quote:


How is China feudal?

And why do you think feudalism (other than the absence of slavery) is necessary?

Quote:


Wrong.

Quote:


Yes they did. Even Diamond points this out.

Quote:


If they are not genetically inferior, they should be able to change in a single generation, unless you think aboriginal parents are such a negative influence on their children...

Quote:


Correlation is not causation.

Quote:


There were plenty of large beasts. Many got hunted to extinction. Some still exist. Like llamas and bison. Furthermore, Diamond simply does not make the claim you attribute to him - that it is a pre-requisite. That would be absurd over-reach.

Quote:


That's your emotional reaction. Now tell me what you think.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:


Name me a society which has industrialized without being a feudalist society??

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:


There were beasts but they weren't domesticated; cows were able to be domesticated which allowed them to be used in agriculture. Bison couldn't be domesticated.

Try again.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:


I think that there is no scientific evidence to support your claim.

I must say, FD, I never believed until this very moment.... As it was with Valkie...

You are racist.

Quote:


Australia.

Quote:


It's hard to domesticate extinct animals. But the same thing that facilitated their extinction probably made them really good candidates for domestication.

Quote:


Why not?

Llama and alpaca were.

Quote:


Are you complaining about our inability to conduct randomised experiments involving the taking of children from their birth parents?

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:


Ah sorry?

Incorrect.

Australia is a transplant society. Australia didn't do anything; it was Britain.

Try again.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:


The cow has not become extinct. When was the last time you ate beef?

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:


No, they weren't.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:


No, I'm pointing out that scientific racism, as you seem to espousing, has been debunked time and time again, and has no basis in fact.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:


You asked me about an increase in agricultural production, so I answered it with enclosure.

Let me re state that feudalism is a prerequisite for capitalism.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:


??

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:


So, you agree then that domesticated animals were fundamental in allowing societies to increase their agricultural productivity??

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:


Which explains why the pre-Columbian societies weren't as complex as other civilizations, amongst other things. Llamas weren't as effective as cows.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:


I do not believe that any race is genetically superior or inferior to any other.

Now, answer my question: do you believe in scientific racism???

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:


So?

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:



I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to change my argument...

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:


I disagree.

The reason why I disagree is because people are more creatures of their environment than they are of nurture. Nurture cannot often overturn the effects of a person's environment; in rare exception it can, but on a societal scale it is even more difficult.

Now, do you believe in scientific racism??