| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>
Author
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 09:24
Omar, in re:  "Certainly a lot of people didn't, I don't know how many did. What they really did was mess up the kids identity. Some hide the fact they are aboriginal and mix into the white (non-aboriginal ) community. Others hold onto their aboriginality even more tightly. A large number left as adults emotionally messed up without much of a past or future."

Omar, reminds me of the first mixed-Australian I ever met. A Blue-eyed Captain who was a proud North Queenslander, but considered 'very Pommie' by his fellow Aussies, who confessed to me in a long night of drinking that he wasn't pure White. That his Grandfather had been an Aborigine, whom he'd met only once in his life. All he could remember of him was 'this old man in a dirty loincloth'. Hardly the romantic image one takes away from the recent (grandiosely) titled film "Australia". 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 10:24

Yeah, that movie was more along the "noble savage" line. Last I checked aborigines don't have magical powers giving them the ability to stop stampeding cattle (though my uncle thinks that the cattle were just curious 'hey, what's this guy doing? Doesn't he know there's a cliff there? This is worth watching')

I knew a guy in school of whom I, despite knowing him for 2 years, didn't find out that he was aboriginal until the last week. I assumed that I just hadn't been paying attention not being terribly fussed about races myself, but I found out on graduation he had actually been hiding it, and telling people had been a major thing for him

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 12:27
Very interesting.
This crisis of identity is very common in all peoples that have mixed origins or natives and Europeans.
Up to the last quarter of the 20th century, the indigenous ancestors were hidden for the public view in most countries, particularly in Latin America, where I lived and I witnessed this attitude personally.
I know of local natives that has changed theirs last names to hide the origins, or that have shouted theirs grandparents for speaking the native language. I also saw that attitude in Canada, where a Canadian student confessed me he had some native ancestors, but that I shouldn't tell the rest.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 23:43
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

'Cultural genocide' makes no sense. It may have value as an emotion stirrer, but of itself it doesn't mean anything.
 
Well, there is the term ethnocide that is used in much literature about these subjects. And for several authors it has a meaning.
 
Quote Primarily, the term, close to cultural genocide, is used to describe the destruction of a culture of a people, as opposed to the people themselves. It may involve a linguicide, phenomenons of acculturation, etc. Furthermore, by contrast with a genocide, an ethnocide is not necessarily intentional. However, unlike genocide, which has entered into international law, ethnocide remains primarily the province of ethnologists, who have not yet settled on a single cohesive meaning for the term.
 
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Yes. People should get informed about the many contradictions of assimilating natives peoples to the mainstream. It was something that had to be done, and in many cases there were abuses, but also there were many benefits. For instance: survival.
 
Integration affect differently regarding circumstances. In several case it has lead to the opposite of survival. In some cases it has lead to an assimilation and finally a disappearance. We see this process still in work when it concerns for example some of the Guraranis of Brazil.
 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Just compare them with the Jesuit missions in South America.
 
The Jesuit missions could also look different. For example the Jesuit missions on Marajo lead to ethnocide, assimilation and disappearance of much of the local indigenous people.


Edited by Carcharodon - 20 Dec 2010 at 23:54
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 00:20
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Perhaps your thinking of Bathurst Island north of Darwin? That was bombed by the Japanese and there was a mission there. Palm Island is too far away to be threatened by the Japanese.
 
No, my great aunt (grandmothers brothers wife) and some of her family, they lived on Palm Island and they were moved during the war, which is why I know. Maybe not all the people there were moved, but some of the kids definitely were (She was mixed Aborigine).
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 01:49
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Integration affect differently regarding circumstances. In several case it has lead to the opposite of survival. In some cases it has lead to an assimilation and finally a disappearance. We see this process still in work when it concerns for example some of the Guraranis of Brazil.
 
Certainly. The assimilation makes people forget theirs original cultures. That's particularly marked in people that moves to the cities. In Latin America, most people is living in cities already rather than in the country side.
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
The Jesuit missions could also look different. For example the Jesuit missions on Marajo lead to ethnocide, assimilation and disappearance of much of the local indigenous people.
 
It may sound weird, but it seems the Jesuit missions didn't act the same way in the anglosaxon countries and in Braziln with respect to what they did in Hispanic America. In fact, I know in Brazil they were colaborators in the slave trade of Indigenous peoples. That's not the image of the noble Jesuits we have in Hispanic America.
 
In Hispanic America the Jesuits protected the natives against theirs enemies, and the heritage of theirs work it is still remember by local peoples, including natives. They were very beloved in Hispanic America by locals of all races and condition. In fact, when the Jesuits were expelled from Hispanic America the complots against Spain started.
 
Now, with respect to Marajo "ethnocide", you shouldn't confuse that word with genocide. Yes, Ethnocide (assimilation+forgotten native cultures) was pursued actively during colonial times and the first century of independent life. The cultures that managed to survive were, or living in a state of war independently, or were so numerous that the Western Culture affected them only superficially.
 
Today, in countries like mine, nobody is enforcing the disappearence of native cultures, but still natives keep abandoning the ancient ways. TV, college and intermarriage are the major forces now, acting by inertia
 
But, I repeat, ethnocide is not the same that genocide. When your ancestors were forced to wear crossed and go to churches, rather than adorate Thor in the wild, they at least survived.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 21 Dec 2010 at 01:57
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 02:15
Originally posted by pinguin
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, with respect to Marajo ethnocide, you shouldn't confuse that word with genocide. Yes, Ethnocide (assimilation+forgotten native cultures) was pursued actively during colonial times and the first century of independent life. The cultures that managed to survive were, or living in a state of war independently, or were so numerous that the Western Culture affected them only superficially. [/quote pinguin
 
Now, with respect to Marajo ethnocide, you shouldn't confuse that word with genocide. Yes, Ethnocide (assimilation+forgotten native cultures) was pursued actively during colonial times and the first century of independent life. The cultures that managed to survive were, or living in a state of war independently, or were so numerous that the Western Culture affected them only superficially. [/quote wrote:

 
Well, the lines between ethnocide and genocide proper is often blurred, one thing leading to another. Ethnocide could many times be enforced, forcing native peoples to move, forcing them into missions, as in Marajo, many times leading to population decline because of violence and diseases. 
 
Also other missionary efforts to integrate Native Americans have resulted i
 
Well, the lines between ethnocide and genocide proper is often blurred, one thing leading to another. Ethnocide could many times be enforced, forcing native peoples to move, forcing them into missions, as in Marajo, many times leading to population decline because of violence and diseases. 
 
Also other missionary efforts to integrate Native Americans have resulted in both ethnocide and even genocide, as the Franciscan missions of California, or such late missions as the Putumayo missions in Colombia.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 06:05
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Jams's use of the word Anglo is perfectly legitimate and accurate in the context of the thread.
In Australia, 'Anglo' is short for Anglo-Celtic, effectively the name of the cultural group of people decendent from Britain, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.
What do you mean 'effectively'? You mean it's actually wrong but convenient? Why don't you just calle them Germano-Celts, which would be more accurate for that group (though German AND Celts would be better)? There were never ever any Angles in Ireland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and most of Britain and Germany. Northern Europeans wouldn't be too bad.
Quote
The vast majority in Aus being from Britain and Ireland. Using Anglo when talking about Australia is just as legitimate as using black when refering to African Americans.
Different altogether. Using 'Anglos' to talk about that racial grouping is like using 'Bantu' to mean African Americans. Pointless and wrong and probably felt to be offensive by some.
Quote
White is usually a synonym for Anglo, but this can be confusing because it is not apparent that Balts, Slavs, and South Europeans are not usually included as white (There are not enough French in Aus to warrent giving them an ethnic group). On the other hand in the context of aboriginal relations, 'white' often means any non-aboriginal, which depending on the location of the topic in Australia can include Pakistanis, Chinese, and Malays.
I don't see that 'often means' has anything to do with anything. People are often wrong.
Quote
So I think Anglo is a better word, because it refers to the one (mainstream) culture, whereas white can mean anything from as specific as Anglo to as broad as immigrant.
Scandinavians, Germans, Dutchmen, Flemings and Walloons, Scots, Irish and English are NOT one culture, mainstream or otherwise. If you want a term for mainstream Australian, use mainstream Australian.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Specify the people responsible: if you can't do it any other way name them, or say 'X and his followers' or some such phrase. Leave out the racist stuff.

It would seem difficult to have a discussion about racist policies white leaving out racial designators. Aboriginal is a racist designator too.
It may be difficult, but worth trying for the sake of accuracy and good sense, not because of any anti-racist position. There is no really acceptable racial designation for the group you're referring to because it isn't homogeneous, and not therefore a racial group.
 
I meant drop the racist stuff when not referring to a racial group.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 21 Dec 2010 at 06:06
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 07:59
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Well, the lines between ethnocide and genocide proper is often blurred, one thing leading to another. Ethnocide could many times be enforced, forcing native peoples to move, forcing them into missions, as in Marajo, many times leading to population decline because of violence and diseases. 
 
You speak so much nonsense.
 
ethnocide is a fantasy word created by Europeans new age activists like yourself.
 
Were there some genocides in the Americas? Yes, they were, but trying to confuse people with pseudo scientific terms like "ethnocide" just to sale the idea of a mass murder in the Americas is, to say the least, a lie.


Edited by pinguin - 21 Dec 2010 at 08:00
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 08:01

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

What do you mean 'effectively'? You mean it's actually wrong but convenient? Why don't you just calle them Germano-Celts, which would be more accurate for that group (though German AND Celts would be better)? There were never ever any Angles in Ireland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and most of Britain and Germany. Northern Europeans wouldn't be too bad.

Anglo-Celtic culture is the culture of people who come from Britain. The other north european groups integrate into that culture very quickly and easily. Calling English Australian's Anglos is convient but not wrong.
Quote Different altogether. Using 'Anglos' to talk about that racial grouping is like using 'Bantu' to mean African Americans. Pointless and wrong and probably felt to be offensive by some.
No, most Americans have nothing to do with the Bantu. If the Bantu had migrated to America, setup a Bantu state, identified as Bantu, and other related non-Bantu central Africans who arrived in small numbers joined the Bantu identity. Then it's comparable.
In fact, the usage of the term is pretty much identical to reffering to the mix of Saxons, Romans, Angles, Danes, and Celts just as English. Or even more accurate, since the Anglish were a smaller part of the English mix than English are in the Anglo-Australian mix.
Quote Scandinavians, Germans, Dutchmen, Flemings and Walloons, Scots, Irish and English are NOT one culture, mainstream or otherwise. If you want a term for mainstream Australian, use mainstream Australian.

Mainstream Australian is less accurate in the context Jams used. It was Anglo Celtic culture, that's English and Scottish in a protestant institution and English and Irish in a catholic one, that was taught in those schools.

For context, in the time period in question, all voices on the radio had to speak BBC English - you couldn't get a job on radio with an Australian accent - and there wasn't such a thing as Australian citizenship - everyone was a British citizen or subject. The culture of the English in England, not the culture of the English in Australia, was enforced and considered proper.

I also don't consider that the English in England have any more right over the usage of the word Anglo than the English in Australia. If you could make some measure of "Englishness" then I'd bet good money that Adelaide would be more English than London.

Quote It may be difficult, but worth trying for the sake of accuracy and good sense, not because of any anti-racist position. There is no really acceptable racial designation for the group you're referring to because it isn't homogeneous, and not therefore a racial group.

No racial group is homogenous. Homogenity is an invented concept. If you think Anglo-Celtic is too wide, a designator where the overwhelming majority of people come from Britain, then you'd also have to accept that Aboriginal is an unacceptable designator. That's like using one word to describe everyone between China & Ireland. Other broad cultural-racial designators used in Aus are 'Wog' - anyone from Italy to Eithiopia, 'Asian' - anyone from East Asia, 'black' - anyone from PNG, the Torres Straight, or Aboringal cultures, 'islander' - anyone from the Pacific.
Races are pretty much whatever people make them to be. The Americans consider West Indians to be the same race as African Americans. I think that's crazy.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 21 Dec 2010 at 08:05
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 17:21
Omar, I agree. To me it's just a convenient word, of a reasonable accepted colloquial use, even though it may be technically wrong, if we're into semantics.
 
As you say, the same can be said for "Aborigine" or "Aboriginal", it also covers multiple ethicities with multiple languages, but it's convenient to use the term in this context. Since it's not even a single "mainstream" culture, it's actually more wrong than "Anglo". "Australian Aborigine" has become the accepted word today, I believe, no matter whether the use is covering multiple peoples, and mixed people who identify with their Aboriginal culture as well.
 
 
 
Oh, and GCLE, I'm mystified as to how you think "Anglo" is anything racial? Is it because the British would find it insulting that Australian mainstream culture is called "Anglo" (derived, perhaps)? I'd say it would be more wrong to call the culture British, then. I also don't think the ideology at the time extended to other Northern European peoples, like Scandinavian immigrants and such (who were quite few anyway), it was the core mainstream culture, as you say, a general way of thinking at the time. "Anglo" is deliberately vague, while "white" alone is a purely racialist term, in my opinion.


Edited by Jams - 21 Dec 2010 at 17:40
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 20:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
You speak so much nonsense.
 
ethnocide is a fantasy word created by Europeans new age activists like yourself. [/QUOTE]
 
Well, one can always play the magic of words, but whatever name you will propose, the end result of both ethnocide and genocide has been the disappearence of whole peoples.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Were there some genocides in the Americas? Yes, they were, but trying to confuse people with pseudo scientific terms like "ethnocide" just to sale the idea of a mass murder in the Americas is, to say the least, a lie.
 
Unfortunately ethnocide, and other forms of cide are still going on in some places in the Americas.


Edited by Carcharodon - 21 Dec 2010 at 20:27
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 21:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Unfortunately ethnocide, and other forms of cide are still going on in some places in the Americas.


Ethnocide means nothing. Genocide has a precise meaning.

Ethnocide is simply a word used by extrements to blame crimes upon others, where there wasn't bloody massacres involved.

You should blame ethnocide on yourself, after been reprogrammed by Deep Ecology and Survival Inc.

Every time a Protestant preach its religion is commiting ethnocide. The same goes for the Khrisna, when they play theirs drums on the street.

Baloney.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 21:43
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

What do you mean 'effectively'? You mean it's actually wrong but convenient? Why don't you just calle them Germano-Celts, which would be more accurate for that group (though German AND Celts would be better)? There were never ever any Angles in Ireland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and most of Britain and Germany. Northern Europeans wouldn't be too bad.

Anglo-Celtic culture is the culture of people who come from Britain. The other north european groups integrate into that culture very quickly and easily. Calling English Australian's Anglos is convient but not wrong.
Quote Different altogether. Using 'Anglos' to talk about that racial grouping is like using 'Bantu' to mean African Americans. Pointless and wrong and probably felt to be offensive by some.
No, most Americans have nothing to do with the Bantu.

And most people from Britain aren't Angles.
Quote
If the Bantu had migrated to America, setup a Bantu state, identified as Bantu, and other related non-Bantu central Africans who arrived in small numbers joined the Bantu identity.
 Then it's comparable.
Then it's like calling Americans 'French'. The Angles only set up a couple of small states in Britain, and never covered the whole country. In fact even calling the British peoples 'Saxons' would be better than calling them 'Anglos', though it would still be wrong.
Quote
In fact, the usage of the term is pretty much identical to reffering to the mix of Saxons, Romans, Angles, Danes, and Celts just as English. Or even more accurate, since the Anglish were a smaller part of the English mix than English are in the Anglo-Australian mix.
Quote Scandinavians, Germans, Dutchmen, Flemings and Walloons, Scots, Irish and English are NOT one culture, mainstream or otherwise. If you want a term for mainstream Australian, use mainstream Australian.

Mainstream Australian is less accurate in the context Jams used. It was Anglo Celtic culture, that's English and Scottish in a protestant institution and English and Irish in a catholic one, that was taught in those schools.
I'm not objecting to your use of English, Celtic, Scottish and Irish, though you are wrong to take the Irish as Catholic and the Scots as Protestant.
If you want to talk about English Australians, Scots Australians, Irish Australians, Welsh Australians and British Australians that' all alright with me. At least, the terms are all right, what you say might not be.
Quote
Quote

For context, in the time period in question, all voices on the radio had to speak BBC English - you couldn't get a job on radio with an Australian accent - and there wasn't such a thing as Australian citizenship - everyone was a British citizen or subject. The culture of the English in England, not the culture of the English in Australia, was enforced and considered proper.

I also don't consider that the English in England have any more right over the usage of the word Anglo than the English in Australia. If you could make some measure of "Englishness" then I'd bet good money that Adelaide would be more English than London.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm just objecting to your use of 'Anglo'. I've been told many times that Adelaide is more English than London, so I accept that, especially since of all cities in England, London is probably the least English.
Quote
Quote It may be difficult, but worth trying for the sake of accuracy and good sense, not because of any anti-racist position. There is no really acceptable racial designation for the group you're referring to because it isn't homogeneous, and not therefore a racial group.

No racial group is homogenous. Homogenity is an invented concept.
No existing racial group is perfectly homogenous. Some groups are more homogenous than others. All concepts are invented by humans.
All the more reason not to use racial terms.
Quote
If you think Anglo-Celtic is too wide, a designator where the overwhelming majority of people come from Britain, then you'd also have to accept that Aboriginal is an unacceptable designator.
I've said exactly that before at All Empires. Of course it should not be specifically applied to Australian peoples only, and it's difficult to pin down when it should be used. It's like 'native' in that respect though it doesn't mean the same.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 21 Dec 2010 at 21:46
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 21:59
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

Oh, and GCLE, I'm mystified as to how you think "Anglo" is anything racial?
Because it refers to a specific, narowly delimited racial group: i.e. a group fairly closely related by blood ties. I for one don't belong to it as far as I can genealogically determine.
Quote
Is it because the British would find it insulting that Australian mainstream culture is called "Anglo" (derived, perhaps)?
Depends on their view of Australian mainstream culture I guess, and whether you yourself reckon you are anglic in origin. But good or bad it's irritating to see someone carelessly misusing terms because one thing that is sure is that current Australian culture, mainstream or otherwise, has nothing to do with the Angles. Australians don't even speak the same language as they did.
Quote
I'd say it would be more wrong to call the culture British, then.
I don't know enough about Australian culture to know whether it is justifiably called 'British'. I do know many of the list of Australian prime ministers were not Angles or even Anglo-Saxon; in fact the two I knew most about, Billy Hughes and Menzies, aren't. Though they all seem to be British.
Quote
I also don't think the ideology at the time extended to other Northern European peoples, like Scandinavian immigrants and such (who were quite few anyway), it was the core mainstream culture, as you say, a general way of thinking at the time. "Anglo" is deliberately vague, while "white" alone is a purely racialist term, in my opinion.
It wasn't me that brought in the Scandinavians and such. You miss the point though: 'Anglo' is not vague, but specific. British is vaguer because it refers to any of the peoples living in Britain.


Edited by gcle2003 - 21 Dec 2010 at 22:00
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 22:33
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Unfortunately ethnocide, and other forms of cide are still going on in some places in the Americas.


Ethnocide means nothing. Genocide has a precise meaning.
 
Ethnocide is simply a word used by extrements to blame crimes upon others, where there wasn't bloody massacres involved.

You should blame ethnocide on yourself, after been reprogrammed by Deep Ecology and Survival Inc.

Every time a Protestant preach its religion is commiting ethnocide. The same goes for the Khrisna, when they play theirs drums on the street.

Baloney.

 
Ethnocide means the destruction of a culture. Often cultural destruction and physical destruction goes hand in hand. There are many examples of that (which I have shown before here on the forum).
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 22:43
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Unfortunately ethnocide, and other forms of cide are still going on in some places in the Americas.


Ethnocide means nothing. Genocide has a precise meaning.
 
Ethnocide is simply a word used by extrements to blame crimes upon others, where there wasn't bloody massacres involved.

You should blame ethnocide on yourself, after been reprogrammed by Deep Ecology and Survival Inc.

Every time a Protestant preach its religion is commiting ethnocide. The same goes for the Khrisna, when they play theirs drums on the street.

Baloney.

 
Ethnocide means the destruction of a culture. Often cultural destruction and physical destruction goes hand in hand. There are many examples of that (which I have shown before here on the forum).


Question. Does American saturation of Australian television viewing count as ethnocide?
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 22:47
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

  
Question. Does American saturation of Australian television viewing count as ethnocide?
 
At least it is a cide of good taste Wink
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 23:50
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

Oh, and GCLE, I'm mystified as to how you think "Anglo" is anything racial?
Because it refers to a specific, narowly delimited racial group: i.e. a group fairly closely related by blood ties. I for one don't belong to it as far as I can genealogically determine.
Quote
Is it because the British would find it insulting that Australian mainstream culture is called "Anglo" (derived, perhaps)?
Depends on their view of Australian mainstream culture I guess, and whether you yourself reckon you are anglic in origin. But good or bad it's irritating to see someone carelessly misusing terms because one thing that is sure is that current Australian culture, mainstream or otherwise, has nothing to do with the Angles. Australians don't even speak the same language as they did.
Quote
I'd say it would be more wrong to call the culture British, then.
I don't know enough about Australian culture to know whether it is justifiably called 'British'. I do know many of the list of Australian prime ministers were not Angles or even Anglo-Saxon; in fact the two I knew most about, Billy Hughes and Menzies, aren't. Though they all seem to be British.
Quote
I also don't think the ideology at the time extended to other Northern European peoples, like Scandinavian immigrants and such (who were quite few anyway), it was the core mainstream culture, as you say, a general way of thinking at the time. "Anglo" is deliberately vague, while "white" alone is a purely racialist term, in my opinion.
It wasn't me that brought in the Scandinavians and such. You miss the point though: 'Anglo' is not vague, but specific. British is vaguer because it refers to any of the peoples living in Britain.

So, it is down to semantics. I use the word differently that the use you accept. I use it for the culture and heritage of the Anglo-Saxons, and not specifically for the "Angle" people, who does not exist any more. As I said, a colloquial use, not a scientific or specific use. The English used the Anglo-Saxon moniker in the past, so it has kind of stuck, as Anglo, which is not a word you can say I misuse, cause it is not a word at all, if you're pedantic about it. It can only be a slang word, never a technically specific word. So, you can say that I am grammatically wrong, which is true, but not that the term is racist, which is nonsense in the context of the use.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo


Edited by Jams - 21 Dec 2010 at 23:51
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 00:32
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

[
Ethnocide means the destruction of a culture.
No. Ethnocide, insofar as it exists, should mean killing people because of their ethnic group, as 'genocide' should be reserved for killing people because of their race.
 
'-cide' should not be used to terminate a word meaning elimination of a culture for the reason that '-cide' indicates something bad (killing) whereas eliminating a culture may not be. Indeed it is only through what you describe as 'ethnocide' that humanity progresses or has any hope of progressing.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 00:46
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

So, it is down to semantics.

Of course it's a matter of semantics. What else would it be?
Quote
I use the word differently that the use you accept. I use it for the culture and heritage of the Anglo-Saxons, and not specifically for the "Angle" people, who does not exist any more.
That's not the way you are using it. 'Anglo-Saxon' in the way you are using it would be just as wrong. I seem to remember the Irish playing a quite significant role in shaping Australian culture, for instance. Using 'Anglo-Saxon' to refer to the Germanic tribes AND the Welsh, Irish, Scots and Normans and all the other tangled skein of the British heritage is simply wrong.
Quote
 As I said, a colloquial use, not a scientific or specific use. The English used the Anglo-Saxon moniker in the past, so it has kind of stuck, as Anglo, which is not a word you can say I misuse, cause it is not a word at all, if you're pedantic about it. It can only be a slang word, never a technically specific word. So, you can say that I am grammatically wrong, which is true, but not that the term is racist, which is nonsense in the context of the use.
The term is a racial one, since it refers to racia descent. It's not like British which refers to a geographical entity. That doesn't mean 'Anglo' is necessarily used in a racist (derogatory) way, but it does invite it being used that way. And incidentally you were correct the first time: I'm saying you are semantically wrong, not grammatically. I'm not objecting to the grammar or syntax, merely to the mistaken meaning.
 
Incidentally, 'Anglo' was indeed being used as a word by Omar at least. Usually yes it is a prefix, which doesn't improve anything.
Quote
Which demonstrates exactly the confusion that is being caused by loose usage all over the place.  For instance, if 'Anglo' is used the way you do, what do you make of the phrase 'Anglo-Scot'? Given your usage it should mean 'Scottish Scot' no?
 
As I said before I'm not denying the word/prefix is being misused by lots of people.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 08:09
Well I your technically correct in objecting to 'Anglo' referring to anyone but the Angles. But after that same thought we also should not use the words English or England. As most people from that region are not Angles as you pointed out.
But this is verging on focusing so much on the specific meaning that we ignore actual meaning.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 11:17
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

...
Question. Does American saturation of Australian television viewing count as ethnocide?


I could bet in that. Wink
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 19:45
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

[
Ethnocide means the destruction of a culture.
No. Ethnocide, insofar as it exists, should mean killing people because of their ethnic group, as 'genocide' should be reserved for killing people because of their race.
 
There are different definitions. Ethnocide could be used also in a figuratively way (ie killing the culture, but not always the people, at least not directly). But, ofcource sometimes it also can be used in a rather fuzzy way.
 
'
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 20:16
Then we are all victims of ethnocide. Every culture in the world is being exterminated and everyone is a victim. Cry me a river.

The food, sexual habits, traditions, language skills, leisure activities, political activities and social morals of myself and my peers differ greatly from that of my grandparents. The fact is that all cultures are in a state of flux and exchange (apart from a very tiny minority of isolated societies, but their time will come). And this is very often a good thing.

Will certain sentimentally valued things be lost on the way? Most certainly. And that is sad for some. But that is no reason to dismiss modern advances and modern culture. And it is especially not a good reason to demonise modern advances and modern culture.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 21:12
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Then we are all victims of ethnocide. Every culture in the world is being exterminated and everyone is a victim. Cry me a river.

The food, sexual habits, traditions, language skills, leisure activities, political activities and social morals of myself and my peers differ greatly from that of my grandparents. The fact is that all cultures are in a state of flux and exchange (apart from a very tiny minority of isolated societies, but their time will come). And this is very often a good thing.

Will certain sentimentally valued things be lost on the way? Most certainly. And that is sad for some. But that is no reason to dismiss modern advances and modern culture. And it is especially not a good reason to demonise modern advances and modern culture.
 
The problem is when ethnocide and genocide (or processes similar to genocide) goes hand in hand, which is not too unusual. Also indigenous knowlege are probably more important to save than we often are aware of, so to protect indigenous peoples cultural heritage, or at least abstain from destroying it, is a rather urgent matter in todays world.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 21:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
The problem is when ethnocide and genocide (or processes similar to genocide) goes hand in hand, which is not too unusual. Also indigenous knowlege are probably more important to save than we often are aware of, so to protect indigenous peoples cultural heritage, or at least abstain from destroying it, is a rather urgent matter in todays world.


Again. You are mixing pears with apples.

You have a case for genocide sometimes. But ethnocide doesn't make sense, particularly when the Indigenous peoples themselves are the more reluctant to protect theirs cultural heritage. It is the states and the ONGs who must keep pushing them to preserve theirs legacy.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 21:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Well I your technically correct in objecting to 'Anglo' referring to anyone but the Angles. But after that same thought we also should not use the words English or England. As most people from that region are not Angles as you pointed out.
But this is verging on focusing so much on the specific meaning that we ignore actual meaning.
'English' is different because it simply means people born or resident in England. The fact that 'England' may be derived from 'Angle' is irrelevant to that. Justin Fashanu was English but not an 'Anglo' or even Anglo-Saxon.
 
'English' falls into the same category as 'British' though of course narrower in geographical scope.
 
It's not a question of specvific vs actual. The way you are using it is a local (and slangy) usage effectively limited to Australia.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 21:46
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

[
Ethnocide means the destruction of a culture.
No. Ethnocide, insofar as it exists, should mean killing people because of their ethnic group, as 'genocide' should be reserved for killing people because of their race.
 
There are different definitions. Ethnocide could be used also in a figuratively way (ie killing the culture, but not always the people, at least not directly). But, ofcource sometimes it also can be used in a rather fuzzy way.
It's the way you are using it that is fuzzy. Killing someone because of their ethnicity is not a fuzzy concept. 'Killing a culture' is indeed as fuzzy as all get out. It's also emotive, though I realise emotive is what you are trying to be.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 21:50
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

The problem is when ethnocide and genocide (or processes similar to genocide) goes hand in hand,
Killing people is the problem. The motive is terribly important (though studying it mas help of course with making the crime rarer).  Killing a hundred people because you want their money, or to satisfy lust, is just as bad as killing them because they are Polish or because hey are black.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.