| 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  <12345 13>
Author
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 21:51
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.
 
Perhaps one must accept that certain words can be used in somewhat different ways according to the circumstances. If one is not to rigid or antiquated it is still possible to grasp the meaning of them.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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 21:59
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

... 
Perhaps one must accept that certain words can be used in somewhat different ways according to the circumstances. If one is not to rigid or antiquated it is still possible to grasp the meaning of them.


But you must be clear in this topic. The extinction of culture is not the same as genocide. You are putting in the same category murder and propaganda, which is nonsense.

The extinction of cultures may happen by genocide, of course, but most of the cases happen by assimilation. And most of the cases as well, there is nothing dramatic in those assimilations.
When Pocahontas dressed as European, got batized and married, nobody killed her. She decide to go for the change.

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 22:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


But you must be clear in this topic. The extinction of culture is not the same as genocide. You are putting in the same category murder and propaganda, which is nonsense.
 
As I said, ethnocide and genocidal destruction many times are intertwined, since ethnocide in the form of deculturation, displacement and assimilation can lead to powerty, disease and death.



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 22:44
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

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.


I think that that costs of destroying the indigenous knowledge is often lower than the costs of not replacing it with the advances of a better developed culture.

Another problem is confusing something like the unintentional spread of disease (for which no pre-20th century person can be blamed) with a concept like genocide.

Also, I wish to know why the replacement of Amazonian culture by Brazilian is more terrible than the replacement of local Australian customs by those we encounter in American media. Australian scientists and artists have contributed far more to the world than Amazonian tribes - so why is their change in culture considered more important than mine?
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 22:51
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


But you must be clear in this topic. The extinction of culture is not the same as genocide. You are putting in the same category murder and propaganda, which is nonsense.
 
As I said, ethnocide and genocidal destruction many times are intertwined, since ethnocide in the form of deculturation, displacement and assimilation can lead to powerty, disease and death.
 
Carch, being born leads to death. And there's no 'can' about it.
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: 22 Dec 2010 at 23:08
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:



I think that that costs of destroying the indigenous knowledge is often lower than the costs of not replacing it with the advances of a better developed culture.
 
Not always. There are many cases where the assimilation into the so called better developed culture has lead to ruin (cultural and physical) for indigenous peoples. And this process is still going on in several places in the world. One must remember that in several countries the integration of indigenous people is an integration not into the upper echelons of majority society but unfortunately enough into the lowest ranks, into a world of slum, powerty, disease, exploitation and social problems.
 
For a summary of health effects for some indigenous people read the report Progres Can Kill, released by Survival International.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Another problem is confusing something like the unintentional spread of disease (for which no pre-20th century person can be blamed) with a concept like genocide.
 
The effects of contagious disease and the fact that they were contagious were not always unknown, so the unintentionality can in some cases be questioned.
 
Read Stannard, David, American Holocaust for an overview with examples concerning the Americas.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Also, I wish to know why the replacement of Amazonian culture by Brazilian is more terrible than the replacement of local Australian customs by those we encounter in American media. Australian scientists and artists have contributed far more to the world than Amazonian tribes - so why is their change in culture considered more important than mine?
 
The impact of American media do not throw down Australians into powerty, social problems or disease in the same degree, I suppose. It is not coupled with displacement (sometimes violent)of people from their land or in the end not only cultural, but also physical destruction.
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 23:09
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Carch, being born leads to death. And there's no 'can' about it.
 
Strange argument.
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 23:23
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:


Not always. There are many cases where the assimilation into the so called better developed culture has lead to ruin (cultural and physical) for indigenous peoples. And this process is still going on in several places in the world. One must remember that in several countries the integration of indigenous people is an integration not into the upper echelons of majority society but unfortunately enough into the lowest ranks, into a world of slum, powerty, disease, exploitation and social problems.
 
For a summary of health effects for some indigenous people read the report Progres Can Kill, released by Survival International.


You seem to enjoy using the word 'some'. I am not really so much concerned about 'some'. I am concerned with the general trend within mainstream society.

Australian aborigines today live on average into their mid 60s. Some aborigines before Australian colonisation lived longer. Perhaps 5% of them lived longer. But 5% is still 'some'.

So what?

Quote
The effects of contagious disease and the fact that they were contagious were not always unknown, so the unintentionality can in some cases be questioned.
 
Read Stannard, David, American Holocaust for an overview with examples concerning the Americas.


How about you give me some specific examples?

Now I am well aware that some Americans spread anthrax to the Amerindians with anthrax in it. But it didn't kill many people, and it wasn't at all typical of the spread of disease in the Americas. So until you can provide definite evidence of the use of biological warfare, I find your argument unconvincing.

Quote The impact of American media do not throw down Australians into powerty, social problems or disease in the same degree, I suppose. It is not coupled with displacement (sometimes violent)of people from their land or in the end not only cultural, but also physical destruction.


But some Amazonians also experience a greater quality of life as a result of Brazilian influence. Old people can be treated for cataracts, young can be immunised against diseases. If the Amazonians refuse to accept the modern world with an attitude of pragmatic enthusiasm, it will be forced upon them. If my own culture refuses to accept modern attitudes of financial regulation and good governance then Australia will become a poor country.

If you ignore the outside world and refuse to adapt to its challenges, you deserve to be defeated and replaced. And you are lucky if you manage to escape without being conquered and dominated.
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 23:23
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:



I think that that costs of destroying the indigenous knowledge is often lower than the costs of not replacing it with the advances of a better developed culture.
 
Not always.
Constantine didn't say 'always', he said 'often. So that is a ridiculous starting point.
Quote
There are many cases where the assimilation into the so called better developed culture has lead to ruin (cultural and physical) for indigenous peoples.
And there are many more where assimilation has led to tremendoous benefits and thousansds of people have lived longer and healtheir lives as a result. Therefore the process should be encouraged, unless there is overwhelming evidence in a particular case that individual people would be physically seriously harmed by it.
 
The majority situation has to rule, not the occasional exception. Assuming there are such exceptions.
Quote
And this process is still going on in several places in the world. One must remember that in several countries the integration of indigenous people is an integration not into the upper echelons of majority society but unfortunately enough into the lowest ranks, into a world of slum, powerty, disease, exploitation and social problems.
And one must remember that the results are usually highly beneficial.
Quote  
For a summary of health effects for some indigenous people read the report Progres Can Kill, released by Survival International.
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Another problem is confusing something like the unintentional spread of disease (for which no pre-20th century person can be blamed) with a concept like genocide.
 
The effects of contagious disease and the fact that they were contagious were not always unknown, so the unintentionality can in some cases be questioned.
Question away. When the answer is that it evidently was NOT intentional, stop asking the question. In fact stop asking even if the evidence doesn't go either way. One presumes innocence, not guilt, even if the accused are white Europeans: they have rights too, though you disregard them all the time.
Quote
Read Stannard, David, American Holocaust for an overview with examples concerning the Americas.
I thought we'd already disposed of Stannard. Going around in circles now are we?
 
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: 22 Dec 2010 at 23:36

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And there are many more where assimilation has led to tremendoous benefits and thousansds of people have lived longer and healtheir lives as a result. Therefore the process should be encouraged, unless there is overwhelming evidence in a particular case that individual people would be physically seriously harmed by it.

 

The process ought to be to help people to a fruitful cooperation and exchange of ideas, technology, knowledge instead of a one sided assimilation of indigenous peoples. To just integrate people for the sake of integration itself is meaningless and destructive.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

Question away. When the answer is that it evidently was NOT intentional, stop asking the question. In fact stop asking even if the evidence doesn't go either way. One presumes innocence, not guilt, even if the accused are white Europeans: they have rights too, though you disregard them all the time.

 

Well, Europeans was aware of contamination (even if they did not know the agents behind this contaminations and infections) and used it in warfare, so the spread of disease was not always so unitentional as you want to belive.

  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 I thought we'd already disposed of Stannard. Going around in circles now are we?

 

Well, you have not, you have just expressed some bias against him.

 

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 23:46
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And there are many more where assimilation has led to tremendoous benefits and thousansds of people have lived longer and healtheir lives as a result. Therefore the process should be encouraged, unless there is overwhelming evidence in a particular case that individual people would be physically seriously harmed by it.

 

The process ought to be to help people to a fruitful cooperation and exchange of ideas, technology, knowledge instead of a one sided assimilation of indigenous peoples. To just integrate people for the sake of integration itself is meaningless and destructive.

And to preserve cultures just for the sake of preserving them is also meaningless and destructive.
The purpose of the process has to be to help the people attain the objectives described in the Maslow hierarchy. It is not to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of butterfly hunters and birds-egg collectors turning to a bigger target.
In case you need it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs , and remember you start with the base of the pyramid, not the top.

Quote  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

Question away. When the answer is that it evidently was NOT intentional, stop asking the question. In fact stop asking even if the evidence doesn't go either way. One presumes innocence, not guilt, even if the accused are white Europeans: they have rights too, though you disregard them all the time.

Well, Europeans was aware of contamination (even if they did not know the agents behind this contaminations and infections) and used it in warfare, so the spread of disease was not always so unitentional as you want to belive.

Straw man. I didn't say that at all. There may well have been cases of disease deliberately being spread. Overwhelmingly more often however, dsease simply spreads of its own accord with no human assistance.
Which is why in every particular instance you need to find evidence of deliberately spreading. And you cannot generalise. The spread of a disease is NOT necessarily the result of deliberate action. Which is probably dead obvious to anyone with half an eye as long as it isn't behind dark filtered glasses.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I thought we'd already disposed of Stannard. Going around in circles now are we?

Well, you have not, you have just expressed some bias against him.

I didn't mean me only. I meant the counter-arguments of people like Elliot and some Dr G dug up.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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 23:49
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

In case you need it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs , and remember you start with the base of the pyramid, not the top.


I am pleased to see you found at least one management theory during your studies that has some utility Smile
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 23:53
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


But some Amazonians also experience a greater quality of life as a result of Brazilian influence. Old people can be treated for cataracts, young can be immunised against diseases.


I should distinguish the attitude in modern democratic Brazil with the historical events of half a century ago and further back in time.
Today Brazil cares for its natives.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


If the Amazonians refuse to accept the modern world with an attitude of pragmatic enthusiasm, it will be forced upon them. If my own culture refuses to accept modern attitudes of financial regulation and good governance then Australia will become a poor country.


Brazil is not forcing a cultural change on Indigenous people. You should be better inform.
With respect to the budget of Australia, I don't think that is related to the rights of indigenous peoples.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


If you ignore the outside world and refuse to adapt to its challenges, you deserve to be defeated and replaced. And you are lucky if you manage to escape without being conquered and dominated.


The idea to be defeated and replaced is too much Darwinean for my taste, and recalls me fascists regimes. That's not the way modern democratic states act with theirs native peoples.


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 23:54
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And to preserve cultures just for the sake of preserving them is also meaningless and destructive.
 
Cultures includes knowledge, they constitute peoples identity. To just say that they are not important to preserve is to show the old colonial western arrogance that is so ingrained in some people that they obviously do not even notice it.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Which is why in every particular instance you need to find evidence of deliberately spreading. And you cannot generalise. The spread of a disease is NOT necessarily the result of deliberate action. Which is probably dead obvious to anyone with half an eye as long as it isn't behind dark filtered glasses.
 
They were not always a case of deliberate action , but in many cases they were a result of negligence and an indifferent attitude.
 
Read Stannard, even if you do not like his conclusions he gives concrete examples.



Edited by Carcharodon - 22 Dec 2010 at 23:55
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 00:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


But some Amazonians also experience a greater quality of life as a result of Brazilian influence. Old people can be treated for cataracts, young can be immunised against diseases.


I should distinguish the attitude in modern democratic Brazil with the historical events of half a century ago and further back in time.
Today Brazil cares for its natives.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


If the Amazonians refuse to accept the modern world with an attitude of pragmatic enthusiasm, it will be forced upon them. If my own culture refuses to accept modern attitudes of financial regulation and good governance then Australia will become a poor country.


Brazil is not forcing a cultural change on Indigenous people. You should be better inform.
With respect to the budget of Australia, I don't think that is related to the rights of indigenous peoples.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


If you ignore the outside world and refuse to adapt to its challenges, you deserve to be defeated and replaced. And you are lucky if you manage to escape without being conquered and dominated.


The idea to be defeated and replaced is too much Darwinean for my taste, and recalls me fascists regimes. That's not the way modern democratic states act with theirs native peoples.


1. Indeed government today behave differently from 50 years ago, or 50 years before that.
2. I am not claiming anyone is forcing culture on anyone else. This is important to recognise. No one forces Australians to watch American television. No one forces Americans to eat Chinese food. Individuals make that choice on their own because they find it works for them, which is fair enough.
3. Cultures that refuse to adapt end up being destroyed. There is nothing left of Druidic Britain. There is virtually nothing left of Byzantium. These societies were too inward looking and strongly resisted foreign trends. Britain today bears no resemblance to its druidic ancestry, Greece today is only a midget reflection of its former imperial glory from the time of Basil II - a weak and uneconomical country unable to pay for itself today. Adapt or die. It's not pretty, but it's how things go.
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 06:09
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

In case you need it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs , and remember you start with the base of the pyramid, not the top.


I am pleased to see you found at least one management theory during your studies that has some utility Smile
In fact there have been many. Of people I knew, Herb Simon was one, Igor Ansoff was another, and I mentioned Chuck Kepner and Ben Tregoe in another thread. Maslow though developed his theory outside management originally, iirc.
 
But of course I always found myself useful. Smile 
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 06:17
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And to preserve cultures just for the sake of preserving them is also meaningless and destructive.
 
Cultures includes knowledge, they constitute peoples identity. To just say that they are not important to preserve is to show the old colonial western arrogance that is so ingrained in some people that they obviously do not even notice it.
Tell me why it's importnt to preserve it. Tell me why it's better to let a child die of meningitis when it could be cured. Tell me why people should be allowed to starve when they could be fed. Tell me that you show a glimmier of concern for the individual people you are dismissing so casually.
 
Every mission of Doctors without Borders, every campaign by Oxfam, every time Greenpeace goes up against the whalers, culture is being destroyed. Yiôu seem to be opposed to every charitable impulse and organisation on the face of the earth.
 
And don't try telling me thet 'sometimes' it is different.
 {QUOTE]
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Which is why in every particular instance you need to find evidence of deliberately spreading. And you cannot generalise. The spread of a disease is NOT necessarily the result of deliberate action. Which is probably dead obvious to anyone with half an eye as long as it isn't behind dark filtered glasses.
 
They were not always a case of deliberate action , but in many cases they were a result of negligence and an indifferent attitude.
Quote
Precisely. So you are completely wrong to condemn everyone the way you do.
 
Read Stannard, even if you do not like his conclusions he gives concrete examples.

[/QUOTE]
Examples aren't the point. Human suffering is the point.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 23 Dec 2010 at 09:32
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.


For the sake of finding the correct definition of what an Anglo (Saxon) is, can we perhaps start with: A Germanic speaking peoples from the cultural region of Angelin located in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany; With the invaders and settlers from that region coming over to Britain right after the Roman period, along with the Saxon's from the low countries until the Norman conquest, into that land and in which... they subsequently became the Anglo-Saxon's as we know them in historical literature.


Edited by Panther - 23 Dec 2010 at 09:33
Back to Top
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 10:15
Constantine IX, in re your: "Now I am well aware that some Americans spread anthrax to the Amerindians with anthrax in it."

I'd be interested in seeing a cite for that. I think you are conflating a single incident which involved a British Army Major in Pontiac's War, which involved smallpox, with anthrax and the Americans? Certainly news to me. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 10:23
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Constantine IX, in re your: "Now I am well aware that some Americans spread anthrax to the Amerindians with anthrax in it."

I'd be interested in seeing a cite for that. I think you are conflating a single incident which involved a British Army Major in Pontiac's War, which involved smallpox, with anthrax and the Americans? Certainly news to me. 


I might possibly be confusing the two illnesses and precisely whether it was post or pre-Revolution in administration.

My point was merely that such incidents were not typical nor widespread - and blaming individuals for the unintentional spread of disases, and equating it with genocide, it just plain wrong.
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 12:15
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


My point was merely that such incidents were not typical nor widespread - and blaming individuals for the unintentional spread of disases, and equating it with genocide, it just plain wrong.


Agreed.

In fact, the ephidemics reached the Inca empire, before the Europeans reached there. Nobody could blame Spaniards for something they didn't know. Beside, people forget the mortality of Europeans and Africans in the Americas was also quite high for contagious diseases.


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: 23 Dec 2010 at 19:03

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Tell me why it's importnt to preserve it. Tell me why it's better to let a child die of meningitis when it could be cured. Tell me why people should be allowed to starve when they could be fed. Tell me that you show a glimmier of concern for the individual people you are dismissing so casually.  

 

Actually, you got it wrong. In more cases than you seem to realize it is quite the contrary, the assimilation and integration, especially into the poorer ranks of society leads to worse health for earlier self sustaining and self suffient people. Many tribal peoples have a relatively healthy life with excercise, a varied and healthy diet and well functioning cultural and social networks and structures. Especially peoples that live on subsitence agriculture, coupled with hunting and fishing on their own land show a nutritional level and health that many times is better than their neighbours of the majority society. Too often the nutritional variety is destroyed when tribal peoples are displaced and they are integrated in the poor third world culture with less varied food, exposure for diseases they were not exposed to before (or at least in a lesser degree) and mental, drug and social problems caused by the destruction of their cultural and societal structures.

I can once again refer to Survivals report Progress Can Kill with its references to anthropological and medical literature.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Every mission of Doctors without Borders, every campaign by Oxfam, every time Greenpeace goes up against the whalers, culture is being destroyed. Yiôu seem to be opposed to every charitable impulse and organisation on the face of the earth.

 

And don't try telling me thet 'sometimes' it is different.

 

 

Noone opposes medical help, on the contrary, many people that are assimilated into the third world needs more medical treatment than before, because of introduced new diseases, but they often do not get it, or they do not get it in an adequate form (once again see the report Progress Can Kill where the connections are explained more in detail). If medical programs include the tribal people itself (especially elders and similar bearers of tradition), have a form adapted to their culture, includes training programs for members of the people and is located so that patients do not have to leave their cultural environment (except for certain cases when special treatment can not be offered locally) they usually have a good rate of success,

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Precisely. So you are completely wrong to condemn everyone the way you do.  

 

But one can condemn indifference and negligence too, and ofcourse those cases that were deliberate one ought to condemn even more. 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Examples aren't the point. Human suffering is the point.  

 

Well examples of human suffering ought to be adressed to further the understanding of these issues.

 

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: 23 Dec 2010 at 20:53
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

For the sake of finding the correct definition of what an Anglo (Saxon) is, can we perhaps start with: A Germanic speaking peoples from the cultural region of Angelin located in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany; With the invaders and settlers from that region coming over to Britain right after the Roman period, along with the Saxon's from the low countries until the Norman conquest, into that land and in which... they subsequently became the Anglo-Saxon's as we know them in historical literature.
 
Happy with that, except on the minor proviso that the 'low countries' involved were not the same as the Netherlands today, though the overlapped.
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 21:03
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Every mission of Doctors without Borders, every campaign by Oxfam, every time Greenpeace goes up against the whalers, culture is being destroyed. Yiôu seem to be opposed to every charitable impulse and organisation on the face of the earth.

 

And don't try telling me thet 'sometimes' it is different.

 

 

Noone opposes medical help, on the contrary, many people that are assimilated into the third world needs more medical treatment than before, because of introduced new diseases, but they often do not get it, or they do not get it in an adequate form (once again see the report Progress Can Kill where the connections are explained more in detail). If medical programs include the tribal people itself (especially elders and similar bearers of tradition), have a form adapted to their culture, includes training programs for members of the people and is located so that patients do not have to leave their cultural environment (except for certain cases when special treatment can not be offered locally) they usually have a good rate of success,

And in so doing their culture is destroyed. You cannot have it both ways. You either preserve the people or you preserve the culture. One of them has to suffer, and hopefully it wo't be the people.
Though I see from what you wrote that you believe that if the culture (the 'elders and similar bearers of tradition') don't agree with modern medicine then the child with meningitis has t be left to die. It matters not one whit that the traisitonalists oppose it, the child should be saved.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Precisely. So you are completely wrong to condemn everyone the way you do.  

 

But one can condemn indifference and negligence too, and ofcourse those cases that were deliberate one ought to condemn even more. 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Examples aren't the point. Human suffering is the point.  

 

Well examples of human suffering ought to be adressed to further the understanding of these issues.

Petty. These issues should be studied in order to alleviate human suffering and further human happiness. Saying you should study human suffering in order to understand these issues is getting the whole thing backwards, from any humanitarian point of view at least.
 
Now if in the process of improving the situation of the people living under such primitive conditions, they are somehow discriminated against or badly treated, then that is a problem something shoudl be done about. It doesn't mean youi should use it as an excuse to abandon the struggle for the greater good.
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 21:34

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And in so doing their culture is destroyed. You cannot have it both ways. You either preserve the people or you preserve the culture. One of them has to suffer, and hopefully it wo't be the people.

 

A people do not have to be culturally destroyed just because it receives medical help in an culturally appropriate way. The Yanomami were not destroyed by the Urihi project.

  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Though I see from what you wrote that you believe that if the culture (the 'elders and similar bearers of tradition') don't agree with modern medicine then the child with meningitis has t be left to die. It matters not one whit that the traisitonalists oppose it, the child should be saved.

 

Ofcourse noone have to be left to die. But there are several cases where of both physoclogical and physical secondary diseases have followed on the removal of people from their social networks in order to give medical health care. Cooperation is best, and the elders do actually understand such things. Some of the most successful cooperative medical projects have actually been undertaken on initiative of tribal leaders and elders.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Now if in the process of improving the situation of the people living under such primitive conditions, they are somehow discriminated against or badly treated, then that is a problem something shoudl be done about. It doesn't mean youi should use it as an excuse to abandon the struggle for the greater good.

 

Noone abandon the struggles for a greater good. To let people keep their identity, to let hem keep their land, to let them keep a healthier life style is indeed in accordance with the struggle for a greater good.

 

It seems you have no real clue about these things. I advice you to read up on material from IWGIA, Survival and similar organisations and also on anthropological reports that deals with these kind of subjects.

 
 
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: 23 Dec 2010 at 22:37
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And in so doing their culture is destroyed. You cannot have it both ways. You either preserve the people or you preserve the culture. One of them has to suffer, and hopefully it wo't be the people.

 

A people do not have to be culturally destroyed just because it receives medical help in an culturally appropriate way. The Yanomami were not destroyed by the Urihi project.

Which brings us back to the problem of the fuzzy definition of what you mean by 'destroying' a culture. How fare can you change a culture without 'destroying' it.
 
The Yanomani thing is irrelevant: I wasn't suggesting the people were destroyed, but that the culture may have been. Destruction of the people wouldhave been mass murder.

Quote   

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Though I see from what you wrote that you believe that if the culture (the 'elders and similar bearers of tradition') don't agree with modern medicine then the child with meningitis has t be left to die. It matters not one whit that the traisitonalists oppose it, the child should be saved.

 

Ofcourse noone have to be left to die. But there are several cases where of both physoclogical and physical secondary diseases have followed on the removal of people from their social networks in order to give medical health care.

Then you should attack those problems directly, not go yammering on about preserving the culture.
Quote  
Cooperation is best, and the elders do actually understand such things.
No they don't, outside possibly some psychological factors.
Quote
Some of the most successful cooperative medical projects have actually been undertaken on initiative of tribal leaders and elders.
That's fine and doesn't surprise me in the least. if the people involved want to get rid of their cultural disadvantages, then fine. However, note that in so doing the culture is not being preserved, but is being changed by pressure from the people involved. It's wrong of you to go against that and focus on preserving the culture as the purpose of the exercise.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Now if in the process of improving the situation of the people living under such primitive conditions, they are somehow discriminated against or badly treated, then that is a problem something shoudl be done about. It doesn't mean youi should use it as an excuse to abandon the struggle for the greater good.

 

Noone abandon the struggles for a greater good. To let people keep their identity, to let hem keep their land, to let them keep a healthier life style is indeed in accordance with the struggle for a greater good.

But that's not what you are doing or arguing for. What you are talking about is preserving their culture. No-one is suggesting stopping anyone from preserving a healthier lifestyle for instance: but you are arguing for the preservation of unhealthier life styles in order to preserve the culture. I don't think anyone here anyway is suggesting their land should be taken away from them: but you are arguing that they should be prevented from selling their land and moving even if they want to.
 
Ensuring individuals' rights, and allowing them to decide what they want to do is important; not your totalitarian pursuit of the presevation of culture.

Quote  

It seems you have no real clue about these things. I advice you to read up on material from IWGIA, Survival and similar organisations and also on anthropological reports that deals with these kind of subjects.

It seems you have no idea of the consequences of what you are advocating, the logic of your arguments, or of human dignity in general. Doesn't matter how many people feel the same way.
The preservation of culture is not, inherently, either good or bad; it therefore should not of itself be elevated to a goal.


Edited by gcle2003 - 23 Dec 2010 at 22:40
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

Back to Top
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: 24 Dec 2010 at 00:44
Carch, in re your: "Too often the nutritional variety is destroyed when tribal peoples are displaced and they are integrated in the poor third world culture with less varied food, exposure for diseases they were not exposed to before (or at least in a lesser degree) and mental, drug and social problems caused by the destruction of their cultural and societal structures."

Let's see, when I studied the Andean Indians back in the 1960s, their life expectancy was in the early 30s. All right, you can (unfairly) blame that on Pinguino's people for all the myriad reasons he has cited. But the Montagnard tribes of Southeast Asia had a similar life expectancy, especially when living in remove areas untouched by 'third world' civilization. Those who were living adjacent to the Vietnamese had higher standard of health and life expectancy. Australians who had then recently served in Borneo among the same ethnic groups  (v.g., the Iban) cited similar observations. Yes, these are anecdotal and 'm sure you can find frustrated romantics who written tomes laying the blame on 'civilization'. Two strains of malaria, endemic dysentery, leprosy, numerous other endemic diseases, leeches longer than your handspan, various and sundry venomous spiders, snakes, centipedes, and other critters, not to mention the occasional tiger, gaur, and rogue elephants contributed to the low life expectancy of these societies where a girl became a woman at 14, was an old maid by 16, and a grandmother by 28. We all admired their clan structures and organization, but we recognized it for what it was; an institution developed to survive the rigors of a rough life in an unforgiving environment. Some of my compatriots share views similar to your own, and are the mainstay of an organization called "Save the Montagnard People". But many others have seen that their best chances for any future of those peoples lies in continued economic development within the 'third world' government that now rules that country. Which for all its faults (i.e., one will NOT oppose the Party in Power in thought, word, or deed) does wish to improve life for all its citizens.

Third world is better than Fourth or Fifth.


Edited by lirelou - 24 Dec 2010 at 00:48
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
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: 24 Dec 2010 at 01:17
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Let's see, when I studied the Andean Indians back in the 1960s, their life expectancy was in the early 30s. All right, you can (unfairly) blame that on Pinguino's people for all the myriad reasons he has cited. But the Montagnard tribes of Southeast Asia had a similar life expectancy, especially when living in remove areas untouched by 'third world' civilization. ...

Third world is better than Fourth or Fifth.


I must say Third World has changed quite a bit since 1960s. Today you can see many regions in the U.S. living in the Third World, actually, and also you can see regions in South America which aren't anymore. 50 years don't pass in vain.

Anyways, it is true that Quechuas and Aymaraes had a life expectancy of around 30 years at that time. That isn't surprising giving the whole region, Quechuas and not-Quechuas, had very low life expectancy at those years.

But you make a mistake. Quechuas and Aymaraes had been integrated to the "Western" society since colonial time, unlike the Amazonians Xingu, that is the single topic Carcha talks about.
Back to Top
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: 24 Dec 2010 at 01:19
Constantine, thank you for clarifying that. As for your point, I agree with it in its entirety.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
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: 24 Dec 2010 at 01:34
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


A people do not have to be culturally destroyed just because it receives medical help in an culturally appropriate way. The Yanomami were not destroyed by the Urihi project.

 


So, what are you talking about "culturally destroyed"?

 

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Ofcourse noone have to be left to die. But there are several cases where of both physoclogical and physical secondary diseases have followed on the removal of people from their social networks in order to give medical health care. Cooperation is best, and the elders do actually understand such things. Some of the most successful cooperative medical projects have actually been undertaken on initiative of tribal leaders and elders.

 


Don't be silly. You very well know that Native of the Americas must be vaccinated to survive in contact with others.
With respect to cultural shock, indeed there is a major cultural shock there.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.172 seconds.