Print Page | Close Window

Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: General Australia, SE Asia & Pacific
Forum Description: Everything about Australia, SE Asia and the Pacific
Moderators:WH

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=125752
Printed Date: 09 Dec 2019 at 15:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?
Posted By: lirelou
Subject: Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 10:45
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - Roger Sandall reviews The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three: The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, by Keith Windschuttle. Excerpts of his review are below. Needless to say, there are no small number of Australians who disagree with Mr. Sandall. Obviously the makers of the recent film, "Australia" may be safely counted among those who hold that such children were 'stolen'.  Ah, a veritable feast for Carch.

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - "The myth of the Stolen Generations (aka Stolen Children) has several elements. The historian who invented it claimed that the separation of child and parent was intended to produce permanent and final institutionalization. Windschuttle found that was not the case. Contacts with parents were generally encouraged, and in New South Wales, during the period 1907-1932, more than half returned to their families. It was originally claimed that the state sought to take the youngest children possible since the main purpose was to destroy their "Aboriginality." Untrue again. Most were teenagers and the idea was to find useful employment for young people who would otherwise waste their lives. Were the missionaries and other custodians "monsters" and "psychopaths"? No. Just mortal men and women with the usual range of human frailties. As for the figure of 100,000, Windschuttle’s concluding judgment is that in the ninety-year period, for the whole continent, the total number of removals was about 8,250."

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - "It is disagreeable reading about frontier conditions on the outskirts of ranches and remote country towns, about the alcoholism and violence, the promiscuity and disease, the child abuse. But it is essential to set down these things, precisely because the regiment of academics who created the myth of Australia’s Stolen Children try hard not to mention them. In their eyes it is tasteless and insensitive to do so—and no doubt much else besides. Yet these pathologies are the blindingly obvious reason for child removal. Not racism. Not cultural genocide. These horrors constitute the suppressio veri that requires the complementary suggestio falsi of "racism" to explain why children were separated from their parents. Their suppression also constitutes the lie at the heart of the so-called Stolen Generations."

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - "Fifty years ago, the Australian Left strongly favored literacy, health, and the assimilation of indigenes. It was a broadly sensible goal. But Left progressivism is incompatible with the romantic idealization of hunting and gathering: the one wants to go forward, the other wants to go back. As anthropological romanticism triumphed in the sphere of social policy, the Left embraced "Aboriginality" over literacy and vocational skills, assimilation was denounced as supremely evil, and Australia’s northern indigenes began their slide into the oblivion of fixed dependency—illiterate, vocationally disabled, desperately in need of help. But to intervene, let alone to remove children, is today howled down as cultural genocide."

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Aboriginal-sin--5337



-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì



Replies:
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 11:28
Politicisation of history....again.
 
The key for the entire piece is the last paragraph which begins with "50 years ago the Australian left....".
 
I read some of this guy's work before and he writes in the same way 19th century racists (erroneously called "orientalists" and "anthropologists") write about western civilisation and the obligation of the "white man" towards savages which in his mindset include everything that is not western.
 
Al-Jassas
 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 11:47
Keith Windschuttle is a revisionist racist "historian" who was one of PM John Howards attack dogs used against anyone who suggested that the whites did anything other than bring about a utopia.
 
The policies varied over the "90" years, and in many respects still continue. It was considered that children that weren't 100% aboriginal should be raised as white. Regardless of the objections of their family.
Cultural genocide was definitely an objective of the period - in fact it remains an objective to this day. Children had to be educated, taught manners, and the protestant work ethic. It was [is] for their own good. Aboriginies (full or mixed blood) were confined to reserves thoughout the early 20th century where teaching culture and language were forbiddian. Children were taken away from parents who did not raise their kids properly. Not raising kids properly included teaching them Aboriginal language, culture or skills.
 
In modern Australia kids are still taken away from parents who don't raise their kids "properly", only the definition of properly has changed slightly to fit modern values.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 23:57
Omar is spot on, revisionist  right wing rubbish.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 13:14
Ah, another Indigenous Australian has sold out her 'heritage' and gone over to the enemy by assimilating into the Western mainstream. And a Country and Western singer to boot. Has she no shame? (Evil Smile  We need en amoticon for "Carch and Penguin alert")

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/first-indigenous-rhodes-a-cause-for-song/story-e6frg6nf-1225972399265



-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 13:46
Be careful what you pray for Lirelou, you might get it as Teresa de Jesus Ahumada was fond of iterating. As for entrusting one's children to an organ of the state being a marked sign of oppression, then I guess we are all "oppressed peoples" the minute we pass that responsibility over to the public schools! OK a lot of sarcasm here but just what is the purpose of an elementary education other than the integration of the individual into the prevailing social norm!

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 14:18
Doc, you'll get no argument from me. I take it my attempt at dry humour has failed. Cry

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 15:34

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Ah, another Indigenous Australian has sold out her 'heritage' and gone over to the enemy by assimilating into the Western mainstream. And a Country and Western singer to boot. Has she no shame?

I'm sure Carch could interpret it that way but apart from the Rhodes scholarship which is always exceptional her story from Stockman's daughter to higher education is not unusal for aboriginal or migrant Australians.

That's the advantage of having a flat social structure and an excellent public education system

Originally posted by DrG DrG wrote:

As for entrusting one's children to an organ of the state being a marked sign of oppression, then I guess we are all "oppressed peoples" the minute we pass that responsibility over to the public schools! OK a lot of sarcasm here but just what is the purpose of an elementary education other than the integration of the individual into the prevailing social norm!

Yeah, um, NO.
Even accounting for sarcasm that's not even funny. Your comparing a system designed to deliberately eliminate a persons culture, with a system designed to provide equal opportunity.
In the former system she would not even know her parents, in the latter she is a Rhodes Scholar. There is no comparision between the two.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 00:36
The fact here, Omar, is that the objective is exactly the same, specially if you are referencing immigrants! Your idea that the fundamental purpose of public education is the provision of "equal opportunity" is little more than semantic obfuscation worthy of the nittering nabobs of the NEA (the National Educational Association of the US)! The purpose was and is the full socialization of the parts into an integrated whole and current antics within this milieu such as "Erkelization" (the war against droopy pants by capturing the dress code violator and "suspendering" him up to his teats) underscores the premise. Yes we can wax prolific over the PC and decry through exaggeration, but when one gets down to the bottom line the supposed "culture" wars and the assignment of some villanous purpose and evil tactics to periods beyond the norms of today is little more than misinformation! Let us say that the interpretation foisted here is essentially the vilification of yesterday's "do-gooders" so as to laud their contemporary versions.
 
By the way... Rhodes Scholarships have more to do with politics and connections than any supposed virtuosity predicating "genius"! Yes, you can go on-and-on about how cynical that observation might be but the essence of cynicism is truth-speaking to those that do not like what is heard! 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 10:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Keith Windschuttle is a revisionist racist "historian" who was one of PM John Howards attack dogs used against anyone who suggested that the whites did anything other than bring about a utopia.
 
The policies varied over the "90" years, and in many respects still continue. It was considered that children that weren't 100% aboriginal should be raised as white. Regardless of the objections of their family.
Cultural genocide was definitely an objective of the period - in fact it remains an objective to this day. Children had to be educated, taught manners, and the protestant work ethic. It was [is] for their own good. Aboriginies (full or mixed blood) were confined to reserves thoughout the early 20th century where teaching culture and language were forbiddian. Children were taken away from parents who did not raise their kids properly. Not raising kids properly included teaching them Aboriginal language, culture or skills.
 
In modern Australia kids are still taken away from parents who don't raise their kids "properly", only the definition of properly has changed slightly to fit modern values.


I suspected it.

By the way, this situation was also lived by several native groups in Latin America. In Chile, the Kawashkar and other natives of southern Patagonia suffered an even more tragic destiny. The charity organizations actually robbed the childrens from the arms of theirs native mothers, to protect them and "civilized" them Confused

History is tragic. This is not to blame people of the present but to recognize abuses existed.






Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 21:24
'Cultural genocide' makes no sense. It may have value as an emotion stirrer, but of itself it doesn't mean anything.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 22:08

Quote Contacts with parents were generally encouraged

I know some who were institutionalised, and what happened. I believe the author is wrong - it may not have been many people, but it did happen the way as described in "Rabbit Proof Fence", for example. Maybe it didn't happen the same way in all cases, but in some cases there were absolutely no contact with the parents after the removal. Or rather, the Aborigine parent(s).

The idea was that when someone was of mixed heritage, they should be brought up as "white". Forced removals happened, and they made a camp on an island (Palm Island) from where nobody could escape. Mixed kids was most often the result of an Aborigine woman/White Anglo man relationship, so the kids initially lived with the mom, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately, the "abuse" as a reason for removal doesn't really mean what is said in the article - they regarded the very idea of living as an Aborigine as abuse by itself - if the kids had a white, or part white parent. They didn't give a flying frig about "pure" Aborigine children in general.

The reason why they could escape at some point was that they moved the people off the islands, to the camp depicted in the above mentioned movie (and others) which was on the Australian mainland, because of the WWII.

They didn't really mean any harm, they truly believed that they did the right thing, according to their belief at the time. It was, however, clearly an exponent of racialist thinking. I think the article is revisionism much in the same way as Holocaust denial is revisionism*.

(* I'm not comparing the Holocaust with the "stolen generation" just to clarify!)



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 00:08
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.


The proper term is cultural destruction. Something in which the European colonizers become experts.

Never heared the conquest was done by the sword and the cross? In other words, by violence and also by a systematic cultural destruction.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 00:11
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

...They didn't really mean any harm, they truly believed that they did the right thing, according to their belief at the time. It was, however, clearly an exponent of racialist thinking. I think the article is revisionism much in the same way as Holocaust denial is revisionism*.

(* I'm not comparing the Holocaust with the "stolen generation" just to clarify!)



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.

Just compare them with the Jesuit missions in South America. Without them, perphaps people like the Guaranies had becomed extincted, and a country like Paraguay would have forgotten Guarani by now.

Anglican missioners with Yaganes,























Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 00:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

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.


The proper term is cultural destruction.
Much better, but still emotive. I'd prefer 'eradication'.
 
The thing is, killing people is inherently bad. 'Genocide' implies people are killed (if there's no killing '-cide' is totally inappropriate), genocide being simply a subclass of homicide.  
 
On the other hand, eradicating cultures isn't inherently good or bad. The work done to get rid of Nazism post ww2 was certainly good. Most human progress involves eradicating cultures.
Quote
Something in which the European colonizers become experts.
No more than anyone else.
Quote
Never heared the conquest was done by the sword and the cross? In other words, by violence and also by a systematic cultural destruction.
I've heard the phrase. I discard it for the unthinking sloganising it represents.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 01:32
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Much better, but still emotive. I'd prefer 'eradication'.


That's not a good term, because it implies an intention. The cultural destruction happened both with intention and without it, just by cultural diffusion. Every time a native replace theirs pottery pots by chinaware or aluminium, a tradition was lost.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
The thing is, killing people is inherently bad. 'Genocide' implies people are killed (if there's no killing '-cide' is totally inappropriate), genocide being simply a subclass of homicide. 


Certainly I agree. Genocide should be reserved only for extermination wars. Not even wars, but wars whose intention was not to defeat a population but to exterminate it.
 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
On the other hand, eradicating cultures isn't inherently good or bad. The work done to get rid of Nazism post ww2 was certainly good. Most human progress involves eradicating cultures.


Nazism was not a culture, but a cultural movement inside the Western civilization. In the case of native cultures, lossing a language and a cultural tradition is a tragedy, no only for the very group but to mankind as a whose.
Certain pracises, such as human sacrifices, deserved to be erradicated, certainly.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Quote
Never heared the conquest was done by the sword and the cross? In other words, by violence and also by a systematic cultural destruction.
I've heard the phrase. I discard it for the unthinking sloganising it represents.


Slogan? Well that phrase resumes pretty well European colonialism in the Americas. That's why is repeated quite often.





Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 01:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Much better, but still emotive. I'd prefer 'eradication'.


That's not a good term, because it implies an intention. The cultural destruction happened both with intention and without it, just by cultural diffusion. Every time a native replace theirs pottery pots by chinaware or aluminium, a tradition was lost.
I'd agree with that. It's just that I thought the theme here was in fact deliberate eradication. I don't like 'destruction' because it automatically implies something bad happening. So far I can't come up with a satisfactory answer. Ermm
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 09:25

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The fact here, Omar, is that the objective is exactly the same, specially if you are referencing immigrants!

I was referring to natives. From an Australian point of view, all immigrant cultures whether they be of 18th century English or 21st century whereever, share a culture similar enough that a common cirricumlum serves the interests of all. Private schools exist where people prefer a certain cultural flavouring to the ciriculum.

Aboriginal people are coming from a radically different background to immigrant peoples. I did allude in my first post & I've said it in other threads that a common theme in the Black-White relationship in Aus is the Whites wanting to make the black fellas into white fellas. Education has been a consistant theme and tool in that process for the last 100 years.
However, the white fellas aren't entirely wrong. You cannot force a person to abandon their entire culture and heritage to adopt another like was tried in the first half of the 20th century, but aboriginal people have no intention of keeping their culture exactly as it always has been. Education is critically important in the modern world. Sure it's not a pure hunter-gatherer way of life, but except for a small few living in the remote outback that way of life was dead 100 years ago. Everybody recognises the importance of education.

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

The reason why they could escape at some point was that they moved the people off the islands, to the camp depicted in the above mentioned movie (and others) which was on the Australian mainland, because of the WWII.

Most of your post is spot on but I'll just clarify this point. There were numerous missions, camps, reservations and schools across the country. The one depicted in Rabbit Proof Fence and the Palm Island Mission are two such examples. They weren't necessarily on islands, depends on whatever suited the situation at the time of establishment, and they weren't moved during WW2. The Palm Island Mission still exists today in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Island,_Queensland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Island,_Queensland



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 10:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I'd agree with that. It's just that I thought the theme here was in fact deliberate eradication. I don't like 'destruction' because it automatically implies something bad happening. So far I can't come up with a satisfactory answer. Ermm


In the Americas, at least, the destruction of the natives cultures is originated mainly by the extraordinary capability of the mainstream to absorve native people into it.

I know that for other ethnic groups, with racial features too different from an average brown Caucasian, the discrimination is quite strong and the assimilation is almost impossible or very slow. In the case of Native Americans, particularly half bloods, to "pass" into the mainstream is not a difficult task at all. Native Americas had the highest rate of intermarriage in the U.S., and elsewhere in the Americas the situation is not different at all. With that it mind the survival of Native American culture depends of the personal decisions of the natives themselves.

Migration to the cities, formal education, TV, intermarriage, religious preaching are some of the factors that influence natives as much as the rest in the Americas. So, to preserve those identities, languages,  handcrafts and traditions, a big effort is required by the states and by the natives themselves. Left alone, the Amerindian cultures of the Americas will dissapear in a century.


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 21:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

The reason why they could escape at some point was that they moved the people off the islands, to the camp depicted in the above mentioned movie (and others) which was on the Australian mainland, because of the WWII.

Most of your post is spot on but I'll just clarify this point. There were numerous missions, camps, reservations and schools across the country. The one depicted in Rabbit Proof Fence and the Palm Island Mission are two such examples. They weren't necessarily on islands, depends on whatever suited the situation at the time of establishment, and they weren't moved during WW2. The Palm Island Mission still exists today in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Island,_Queensland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Island,_Queensland

I didn't mean to say that Palm Island was the sole camp, but the ones I know were camped there, and yes, they were moved during WWII to a camp like the "Rabbit Proof Fence" camp. I suppose they were moved back after the war, perhaps? Interestingly, they also ran away from the camp, and made the long journey to their people just like the girls in the movie. It happened regularly. I don't think it was the same camp, actually, since it's on the other side of Australia, but the documents claim that it was. In any case, it was far away from the people they belonged to. 

 

PS, there's no doubt that the motivation behind the removals also was that they wanted to "mix out" the Aborigine "blood", which truly was seen as inferior at the time. The sequence in the "Rabbit Proof Fence" movie, where Neville, the manager, shows how to breed out the Aborigine features is really what they thought. If not of the legislation, perhaps it was just the local administrators who thought like that - but it was effectively one of the reasons why they did as they did, at the time. I'm not sure whether the reasons for removals were the same after the war, but at the time, pre-WWII, it certainly was.

 

This may not be genocide, but they did want to breed the Aborigines out of existence, by claiming every mixed kid and by bringing that kid up as white - which the first gen never would be, obviously.

You think they would have the same life as an Anglo person after they left the camps?



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:21
Someone else using 'Anglo' in an irritating way.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:34
What's irritating about it? The reason I wrote Anglo, is because it's much more specific that "white" which is a term that annoys me, because it's so inclusive.
The fact that those Brit descendent peoples were "causasoid" or whatever, is totally irrelevant, They were promoting the "English way" of life - not the "white way" because there is no such thing.
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:46

You're now confounding confusion by intoroducing the 'English' way of life. 'White' is undesirable for other reasons, but it's true it is also too inclusive. The trouble is you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater and made it too exclusive. 'English' is better than 'Anglo', 'British' would be better, but the real flaw here is using a racial designation at all.

You're correct that 'caucasoid' is irrelevant (I would have said nonsensical) but you overlook that trying to find any such shorthand designation is the root of the problem here. 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. 



-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 00:28
Anglo is good for me. It means people that speak English and that are historically related to the United Kingdom, and particularly to England. The immigrants and others are not problem because with times they had becomming Anglicized.

With respect to race, it is undeniable the United Kingdom originally was made by a people that where Caucasians, of Celtic and Germanic origins. That people today don't want to offend citizens of Jamaican or Pakistani descendant, living in the UK, is not argument to deny a British "race" used to exist.






Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 00:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You're now confounding confusion by intoroducing the 'English' way of life. 'White' is undesirable for other reasons, but it's true it is also too inclusive. The trouble is you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater and made it too exclusive. 'English' is better than 'Anglo', 'British' would be better, but the real flaw here is using a racial designation at all.

You're correct that 'caucasoid' is irrelevant (I would have said nonsensical) but you overlook that trying to find any such shorthand designation is the root of the problem here. 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. 

I'm too tired to explain why I used the term "Anglo" and you tend to read other meanings into this than what I intended. There's nothing "Racial" in this. It's strictly culture. Some ideas just don't carry well across the net, and we're not on the same wavelengt, I'm sorry to say.
However, look at what I wrote and see the CONTEXT of my use of "white Anglo". There's a reason for my use of "Anglo" but you're either oblivious to that, or you include some other irrelevant issue, or you're just into semantics, I can't tell.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Anglo is good for me. It means people that speak English and that are historically related to the United Kingdom, and particularly to England. The immigrants and others are not problem because with times they had becomming Anglicized.

With respect to race, it is undeniable the United Kingdom originally was made by a people that where Caucasians, of Celtic and Germanic origins. That people today don't want to offend citizens of Jamaican or Pakistani descendant, living in the UK, is not argument to deny a British "race" used to exist.

It's not just that, I'm talking about the Australian reasoning for the things they did, and that clearly originate from a prevailing Anglo attitude towards other people in the world. It's not a "White" thing, it is strictly a Anglo thing - other countries had nothing to do with this, in Australia.

 

Their argument is.

 

1. They are white, the kid is part white. So he belongs to them.

 

2. They're an extension of Anglo (yes Anglo) culture and thought.

 
3. Other cultures and way of life is inferior.

 

Now, I could have written British, but I'm talking about stuff like white mans burden, which was an Anglo phenomenon - it was not specifically English or British, but prevailing in every Anglo influenced country, including the USA anb Australia and even Canada. So ANGLO is the only word that covers. And it was also meant ironically when I wrote "White Anglo" if you see the context, although admittedly those kind of things doesn't carry well across the net, as I said.

It's slang, if you will.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:20
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Anglo is good for me. It means people that speak English and that are historically related to the United Kingdom, and particularly to England. The immigrants and others are not problem because with times they had becomming Anglicized.

With respect to race, it is undeniable the United Kingdom originally was made by a people that where Caucasians, of Celtic and Germanic origins. That people today don't want to offend citizens of Jamaican or Pakistani descendant, living in the UK, is not argument to deny a British "race" used to exist.

It's not just that, I'm talking about the Australian reasoning for the things they did, and that clearly originate from a prevailing Anglo attitude towards other people in the world. It's not a "White" thing, it is strictly a Anglo thing - other countries had nothing to do with this, in Australia.

 

Their argument is.

 

1. They are white, the kid is part white. So he belongs to them.

 

2. They're an extension of Anglo (yes Anglo) culture and thought.

 
3. Other cultures and way of life is inferior.

 

Now, I could have written British, but I'm talking about stuff like white mans burden, which was an Anglo phenomenon - it was not specifically English or British, but prevailing in every Anglo influenced country, including the USA anb Australia and even Canada. So ANGLO is the only word that covers. And it was also meant ironically when I wrote "White Anglo" if you see the context, although admittedly those kind of things doesn't carry well across the net, as I said.

It's slang, if you will.



Interesting. This point in the argument is exactly the opposite to the One Drop Rule in the United States:

"1. They are white, the kid is part white. So he belongs to them."

In the U.S., mixed people was considered (and it is still considered) to be part of the non-European group. So, a half Amerindian was considered Amerindian and a half black was considered black.

The Spanish colonial attitude is closer to the Australian you describe: destroy the culture to save the natives.



Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:25
They were not really considered white by anyone, they were considered as "belonging" to the white community, as a property kind of thing. You know "we own you" kind of. Typically those kids were not in touch with their non-aborigine parent as well. They were in touch with a boarding system, the state. The state that tried to bring them up with "Anglo" values (oops, there's that Anglo again). The whitening aspect was a long time goal, achievable by mixing for a few generations.

The whole long term idea was to breed the Aborigines out of existence.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:28
It is curious that the same attitude existed among the European colones of Austral Patagonia, during the late 19th century and early 20th.

The attitude was: "we have to rescue these poor kids from the hands of those barbarians".

Curiously, this same attitude seems to exist in the minds of those that addopt kids in the Third World, to save the poor creature from those barbarian countries Confused


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:42
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is curious that the same attitude existed among the European colones of Austral Patagonia, during the late 19th century and early 20th.

The attitude was: "we have to rescue these poor kids from the hands of those barbarians".

Curiously, this same attitude seems to exist in the minds of those that addopt kids in the Third World, to save the poor creature from those barbarian countries Confused
 

Yes, there's a dilemma there. I know some people who were adopted in this fashion - and they don't really know if it's a good idea - although they admit that they probably wouldn't change places - the financial situation just makes it undesirable.

 

However, for those people it's typically the mother who has given up on the child for various reasons, and not something that is forced directly, and certainly not some plan of racial eradication, as in the case with  the mixed Aborigine removals. Maybe it's part of the same condescending mindset, but it's not part of any racial plan.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 08:23
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
However I will use the opportunity to mention that after WW2 many English orphans were brought out from England and placed into state care in very similar institutions. While those institutions were brutal, at least you cannot wipe out an Englishman's culture by enforcing Anglo culture (though the question does remain over which team they supported in the Ashes )
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

I didn't mean to say that Palm Island was the sole camp, but the ones I know were camped there, and yes, they were moved during WWII to a camp like the "Rabbit Proof Fence" camp. I suppose they were moved back after the war, perhaps? Interestingly, they also ran away from the camp, and made the long journey to their people just like the girls in the movie. It happened regularly. I don't think it was the same camp, actually, since it's on the other side of Australia, but the documents claim that it was. In any case, it was far away from the people they belonged to.

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.
Quote
You think they would have the same life as an Anglo person after they left the camps?

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.


Posted By: lirelou
Date 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


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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



Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguicide - linguicide , phenomenons of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acculturation - acculturation , etc. Furthermore, by contrast with a genocide, an ethnocide is not necessarily intentional. However, unlike genocide, which has entered into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law - international law , ethnocide remains primarily the province of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnologist - ethnologists , who have not yet settled on a single cohesive meaning for the term.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Ethnocide - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Ethnocide
 
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.


Posted By: Jams
Date 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).


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.



Posted By: Jams
Date 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.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australian_languages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australian_languages
 
 
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.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.




Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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).


Posted By: Guests
Date 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?


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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


Posted By: Jams
Date 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


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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

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

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.



Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.
 
'


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.




Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.





Posted By: Guests
Date 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?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.

 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs - 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.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2010 at 23:49
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

In case you need it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs - 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


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.




Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.



Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs - 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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: lirelou
Date 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


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.




Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.

 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.

 
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: lirelou
Date 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.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.


Posted By: lirelou
Date 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


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 01:36
Penguin, in re: "today you can see many regions in the U.S. living in the Third World,"

My esteemed SA colleague:  When was the last time you set foot in the U.S.? Third world? Well, there actually are a few pockets of such that do exist, because of the desires of the inhabitants (the Navajo Reserve comes to mind), but our 'third worlders' generally have cell phones, televisions, and automobiles. And no small amount of drugs are traded there, which the inhabitants always seem to have enough ready cash to purchase. And their life expectancy is definitely above the 30s.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 03:05
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


My esteemed SA colleague:  When was the last time you set foot in the U.S.? Third world?


Just check Katrina.




Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 06:29
Sorry, Penguin, I actually lived through a hurricane in Louisiana. Namely Hurricane Carla in 1961. The response definitely wasn't third world. Alerts even went out in Cajun French to make sure that everyone understood. You might want to actually travel to the U.S. at some time, and see it for yourself. The scales might fall off your eyes. 

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 06:36
I watched the emergency on TV. It was a reaction of a Third World country, badly organized, I am afraid.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 06:47
Penguin, I watched the Chilean coup on TV in newsreels, and the military was performing their duty admirably. Must've been that same channel you watched the Katrina response on.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 07:19
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Penguin, I watched the Chilean coup on TV in newsreels, and the military was performing their duty admirably. Must've been that same channel you watched the Katrina response on.


It must be the channel that focus in "Third Wolrd countries" LOL


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 08:44
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


I watched the emergency on TV. It was a reaction of a Third World country, badly organized, I am afraid.


Ahhh... And here is where you seem to get into a lot of trouble my flightless friend! You base a lot of your opinions on the assumptions of others, especially the dopes on television. Not a good idea! I certainly do not think you are stupid, just largely unprepared for some subjects you choose to engage in. Some advice: Personal in-depth research for both sides of the story can only help you immensely amongst your peers, specifically, your northern counterparts. Your well acquainted with the cons, now what about the pros? That and it makes you come across as really knowledgeable of the subject. I say this with an eye to helping you pinguin, seeing that you seem to be an amendable chap when it comes to your opinions being challenged and corrected if done in a respectful way.

Now, for the sake of this thread discussion staying on topic, any future comments anyone would wish too make about about Katrina should be made here

http://www.allempires.net/forum/hurricane-katrina-five-years-later_topic125887.html - http://www.allempires.net/forum/hurricane-katrina-five-years-later_topic125887.html

Respectfully,
Panther


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 13:18
Panther:

Although I appreaciate it the good mood and friendly way to explain matters, I believe I don't need your advice on the interpretation of this event. As the matter of fact, Katrina shown the world there is more than a single U.S. It shown the world that this powerful country is not only made of suburbs for higher middle class people, as show in the TV series.

It is a pitty, but even in the more powerful country in the world, from the military point of view, there is still a 14% that belongs to the Third World, and live in Third World conditions, with Third World health care and education.

In short, the difference between many countries can be measured simply by comparing the percent of people under the poverty line.





Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2010 at 14:03
Ah another example of Penguin logic...
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25 Dec 2010 at 10:35
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Panther:

Although I appreaciate it the good mood and friendly way to explain matters, I believe I don't need your advice on the interpretation of this event. As the matter of fact, Katrina shown the world there is more than a single U.S. It shown the world that this powerful country is not only made of suburbs for higher middle class people, as show in the TV series.


My point is that there isn't some poorer areas in the US. I'm not contesting that. The point here is that it was only highlighted by the media because of a tragedy and tragedies sell. Other than that, the media doesn't care a fig about them or these areas unless it is profitable for them! Further to that, do you have any idea as to why things seemed to have gone belly up in the state following Katrina's wrath? Not to excuse the federal response, but the state governor at that time was really clueless as to what to do, even with so many people prodding her in allowing the Feds to do something, from the mayor of New Orleans all the way up to the President and still she dawdled! That is one of the major reason she lost her job to Bobby Jindal! As for the military, they did a magnificent job at organizing and rescuing people with hardly any credit given to them by the media, as is typical of the b@$#ards!AngryCensored





Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net