4 ms·
There is a sad history in Australia of treating the indigenous population as nothing more than a bunch of savages. This had its origins as a kind of reality dis
by Gatsky 7y ago
There is a sad history in Australia of treating the indigenous population as nothing more than a bunch of savages. This had its origins as a kind of reality distortion to justify taking their land and in some cases, exterminating them entirely as happened in Tasmania. There is still this perverse incentive today, since acknowledging that there was a full blown civilisation with a very long history present before English colonisation means we are a morally bankrupt nation, and also invites discussion of reparations.
- bwilli123 7y agoDaisy Bates (early 1900's) lived alongside Aborigines all her life. Learned their languages and customs. No modern gloss is placed on what she saw. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400661h.html http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400661h.html
- geeostation 7y agoRural Australian whites were shooting Aboriginals like Animals few decades ago :( back on topic, we are still discovering new things about the aboriginal civilisation https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-19/fire-reveals-further-parts-of-6600-year-old-aquatic-system/11876228 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-19/fire-reveals-further-...
- fit2rule 7y agoThe Australian government was still forcefully sterilising FNP girls into the 70's. See also, Stolen Generation.
- retsibsi 7y ago> shooting Aboriginals like Animals few decades ago Is this really true? I know there's a terrible history of massacres and unpunished murders, but was that sort of thing really going on so recently?
- Perenti 7y agoYes. The government paid a bounty in the Northern Territory for myall (wild aboriginal people) scalps until well into the 20th century.
- retsibsi 7y agoI interpreted 'few decades ago' to mean, roughly, within 30-40 years or so. Second half of the 20th century at the very least. (I'm not being pedantic for the fun of it, let alone because I want to downplay the atrocities that have been committed. I want to know if I'm ignorant of some important recent history; if not, I guess I want to point out that our recent history isn't quite as bad as the parent comment seemed to indicate.)
- fizzbucket 7y agoSorry, what's your source for this?
- blompa 7y agoAlthough the rest of what you say is true, it's actually a myth[0] that all Tasmanian Aboriginals were killed off (something that Tasmanian Aboriginals find frustrating in itself). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tasmanians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tasmanians
- stubish 7y agoIt wasn't always a myth. The legal definitions have changed over time and place, and scientific and social definitions varied. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10#historicalcontext https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...
- blompa 7y agoInteresting, thank you for the link.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoTrying to phrase this delicately: is there such a thing as a non-full-blown civilization in your view? Or is an uncontacted tribe in the jungle equally "civilized" as the ancient Romans or Chinese?
- ptah 7y agofrom the perspective of sustainability the uncontacted tribe is more civilized than the ancient Romans or chinese
- harperlee 7y agoInsightful, but that is unidimensional and clearly not sufficient to define civilization. What other perspectives we should consider? Do you think we need to leave out some that might come quick to mind, such as "complexity", "specialization", etc.? I heard in highschool that scale is the big issue with civilization. Anarchy, for example, can work up until people start not knowing themselves (I heard 200 then; I'd argue that this corresponds or is near of Dunbar's number 150 [1]. I don't think this was known by my teacher then, as this was first proposed in 1990 according to wikipedia). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number