6 ms·

He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of

He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful.

tjmc 4y ago
Got a source for this fact? Generalising opinions to a whole race is rarely wise. Perhaps like anyone else with religious beliefs, those who are offended simply want their culture respected.
- girvo 4y ago
  > those who are offended simply want their culture respected Even more so, in this case, considering my country's historical "handling" of ATSI culture, and the mobs in general.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Its not doing X to Y, its doing X to Z which is synonymous to Y is…a contradiction. IF Z is a synonym for Y, doing X to Z is doing X to Y.
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      Trying to map natural language statements to formal logic doesn't work well, unless you make a ton of assumptions as you have here...and then it still doesn't work well.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    >My source is growing up there Where did you grow up that simultaneously had a large Aboriginals and Native American population?
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      I never claimed such a thing. What a ridiculous takeaway.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        >He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans... They presumably asked for a source for both claims, your only provided one says you lived among them. Either you grew up among both populations or have provided no source for one of your claims.
        Zurrrrr 4y ago
        You presumed wrong.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I don't see where that person specified which claim they wanted a source for, but I'll ask for a source for both claims. I still have no idea if you grew up among Aboriginals or Native Americans, or what makes you so confident about the other race/culture's beliefs.
        Zurrrrr 4y ago
        Just curious, but are you on the spectrum? Or an ESL speaker? Context makes it clear which claim they were asking for. In any case, I'm not providing a source. This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience. If you're still really unsure where I grew up, you can probably figure it out from my other comments. Feel free to search for whatever you find sufficient to corroborate my claims, or continue to be skeptical (as you should). I don't mind either way.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Really? Replying to a request for sources with personal attacks?
  - defrost 4y ago
    Growing up where? Australia? (big country) .. Western Desert (kind of specific) .. Redfern (very urban) .. etc. Can you roughly indicate on a map? There's a lot of different language groups and cultures, a lot of religuous beliefs, and a broad spread of skills both old and new. https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_highres.jpg https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high... ( FWiW I grew up in the Kimberley not far from the Mungalalu Truscott Airbase and am currently on Ballardong land )
  - tjmc 4y ago
    So just so I understand, your source is growing up in one of the several hundred separate Aboriginal nations of Australia, most of whom have completely different languages and are dispersed across a vast nation as big as the continental United States and he speaks for all of them. Got it.
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      Got it. Do you though? I doubt it.
  - monstertank 4y ago
    I just read your comments, and you seem to be saying your subjective experience amounts to evidence (for you, which is fine) But the argument was that this was an emotionally charged topic and you displayed that while appearing to argue the opposite. As a fellow Australian, I understand the over sensitivity, especially due to the Voice crap that's going on atm. As for generalizing racially, I agree, it makes no sense. Which is why the voice thing sounds stupid to me. I feel like there are two groups of indigenous peoples growing in Australia. What I call the 'technically aboriginals' and 'actual aboriginals' and I realize this might marginalize those with partial ancestry. I often wonder if the voice is just being pushed by super liberal very light skinned aboriginals (that to me probably never suffered real discrimination) or outback dark skinned tribal bush aboriginals (that are discriminated against on site). I feel like the more bush you go, the more conservative you get...idk
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      No, I'm not talking about subjective experience at all. ALL that happened was that I made a generalization, and other people wanted to contest it because, well, they could. It's not more complicated than that. It's basically if I said most action movies have a car chase or gun fight, and someone wanted to die on the hill claiming that that generalization is inaccurate and not all action movies have to have a gun fight or car chase. I agree though that the discrimination of aboriginals is politicized though, and it shouldn't be.
    - riatin 4y ago
      Based on my (very) subjective experience, a lot of the noise around the Voice + Invasion Day is being created by people with extremely tenuous links to indigenous heritage - which I think is maybe shifting away from what could be much more positive outcomes for truly marginalised Aboriginals.
    - sgt 4y ago
      Basically white people who - to their delight - realized they are "aboriginals".
- nyolfen 4y ago
  some of them may not want their legal privileges backed by historical narratives compromised by scientific findings; this is very common with native american tribes, for instance the lipan apaches in texas. additional science can only hurt their position with respect to the BIA.
  - justatdotin 4y ago
    no: The (only recently created) legal privileges of native title are severely limited and can be effortlessly extinguished. These limited privileges are based on (belated) recognition of prior occupation, but irrespective of how long people were here before colonisation. on the other side of the ledger, significant legal harms are imposed on predominantly Indigenous regions, including apartheid-style laws that are applied on the basis of race, and lower standards of basic services provided through dedicated streams again predicated on race.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      there are reasons to believe that some groups with legal claims have no legitimate grounds and only point to fragmentary records of prior occupants that they can provide no evidence of connection with. perhaps if you can manage to think past the scary words you can recognize that some people exploit systems to their advantage.
      - justatdotin 4y ago
        what reasons, what legal claims, and most of all: what advantage do you imagine Indigenous Australian people might gain on the basis of the extent of their heritage? the sustained deficit of public housing? the lack of safe drinking water? the big blue signs slandering entire communities as drunken perverts? the mass sackings to force people onto quarantined welfare? the draconian star-chamber powers granted to the ACC? the systemic theft of hard-won social infrastructure? because all of these 'advantages' are granted to anyone living in predominantly Indigenous postcodes of the NT, regardless of how long you dare to admit their ancestors were here.
ajross 4y ago
And I'm saying the place to have that fight is with the putative Aboriginals and not here on HN where everyone is just talking about the science. I mean, I get it. People are mean. People are unreasonable. Lots of good discussion can't happen because people are mean and unreasonable. But you're not making things better by assuming bad faith and throwing shade at everyone else preemptively. That's just being mean and unreasonable.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  It was very insightful for me to know that its common amongst Aboriginals there to have that view. I will corroborate it elsewhere now what I know what to look for.
  - riatin 4y ago
    Suggest you look at most popular mastheads in Australia, in particular the state funded broadcaster to see the phenomenon play out in reality.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  No reason to say that though. The person you replied to was saying it is a shame it is an emotionally charged discussion and he is right. That one particular discussion on HN might not be emotionally charged doesn't negate his point. Were you just pretending not to understand?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The best way to get an emotionally charged discussion on Hacker News is to put a caveat that it's unfortunate that a topic is emotionally charged. It's a lightning rod and discussion bridge for people who just want debate controversial issues. I certainly have been on both sides of it.
girvo 4y ago
> Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful. No, they do not all do this, and I'd caution you on speaking for a people that aren't a monolith within their mobs in the first place.
- thomasfromcdnjs 4y ago
  Aha I thought about replying to the parent comment. (Long time no see)
  - girvo 4y ago
    Haha hows it going mate! There's a lot of sweeping generalisations in this thread. Should be expected considering the audience, I guess, but it's still disappointing
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - girvo 4y ago
    Right, so you're allowed to spout whatever idiocy you want, but others aren't allowed to call you on it. Sounds about right. You grew up in Aus apparently, but seem to have very little understand of ATSI culture and how diverse it is. Come work with my partner at IUIH and then generalise the way you have been. Generalise disparate groups of people elsewhere. And shove off with your thought terminating cliches: it's not pearl clutching, it's educating you, because you apparently require it.
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - dawdaway 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful. I mean, if we are going to make these kinds of broad generalizations and comparisons, could we at least change “Native Americans” to “Christian fundamentalists”. It’s not any less true.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - yesenadam 4y ago
    Ok, I give up. That's about the 20th mocking, insulting comment of yours I've read on this page, while you pretend to occupy the high ground. Sickening stuff. HN deserves way better. Please refresh on the guidelines. There aren't many in the first 10 paragraphs of the "In comments" guidelines you haven't broken on this page, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      Thanks for your input.
      - yesenadam 4y ago
        No problem, I'm sure it's not just me who felt that. Also, please consider that even if you were totally right about everything and everyone you interacted with totally wrong, that would be no justification at all for the way you've carried on on this page.
        Zurrrrr 4y ago
        Thanks for letting me know.
thoi3u4o2i34324 4y ago
[flagged]
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  I didn't know that, but yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing that, that was interesting to learn.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
justatdotin 4y ago
what I've noticed in my lifetime is that the attempted narratives of mainstream science continue to edge towards original local knowledge. if locals abandoned their knowledge and accepted the 40,000ya story told when I was a kid, they'd be out by just as much given the 80,000ya now indicated by artefacts at M2, Madjedbebe; the oldest site of continual human habitation.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  If I'm understanding you correctly, there are some things revealed by science that seem to match some kinds of ancient knowledge, but that could easily just be coincidence.

tjmc 4y ago

Got a source for this fact? Generalising opinions to a whole race is rarely wise. Perhaps like anyone else with religious beliefs, those who are offended simply want their culture respected.

girvo 4y ago
> those who are offended simply want their culture respected Even more so, in this case, considering my country's historical "handling" of ATSI culture, and the mobs in general.
Zurrrrr 4y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Its not doing X to Y, its doing X to Z which is synonymous to Y is…a contradiction. IF Z is a synonym for Y, doing X to Z is doing X to Y.
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    Trying to map natural language statements to formal logic doesn't work well, unless you make a ton of assumptions as you have here...and then it still doesn't work well.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >My source is growing up there Where did you grow up that simultaneously had a large Aboriginals and Native American population?
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    I never claimed such a thing. What a ridiculous takeaway.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans... They presumably asked for a source for both claims, your only provided one says you lived among them. Either you grew up among both populations or have provided no source for one of your claims.
      - Zurrrrr 4y ago
        You presumed wrong.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I don't see where that person specified which claim they wanted a source for, but I'll ask for a source for both claims. I still have no idea if you grew up among Aboriginals or Native Americans, or what makes you so confident about the other race/culture's beliefs.
        Zurrrrr 4y ago
        Just curious, but are you on the spectrum? Or an ESL speaker? Context makes it clear which claim they were asking for. In any case, I'm not providing a source. This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience. If you're still really unsure where I grew up, you can probably figure it out from my other comments. Feel free to search for whatever you find sufficient to corroborate my claims, or continue to be skeptical (as you should). I don't mind either way.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Really? Replying to a request for sources with personal attacks?
- defrost 4y ago
  Growing up where? Australia? (big country) .. Western Desert (kind of specific) .. Redfern (very urban) .. etc. Can you roughly indicate on a map? There's a lot of different language groups and cultures, a lot of religuous beliefs, and a broad spread of skills both old and new. https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_highres.jpg https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high... ( FWiW I grew up in the Kimberley not far from the Mungalalu Truscott Airbase and am currently on Ballardong land )
- tjmc 4y ago
  So just so I understand, your source is growing up in one of the several hundred separate Aboriginal nations of Australia, most of whom have completely different languages and are dispersed across a vast nation as big as the continental United States and he speaks for all of them. Got it.
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    Got it. Do you though? I doubt it.
- monstertank 4y ago
  I just read your comments, and you seem to be saying your subjective experience amounts to evidence (for you, which is fine) But the argument was that this was an emotionally charged topic and you displayed that while appearing to argue the opposite. As a fellow Australian, I understand the over sensitivity, especially due to the Voice crap that's going on atm. As for generalizing racially, I agree, it makes no sense. Which is why the voice thing sounds stupid to me. I feel like there are two groups of indigenous peoples growing in Australia. What I call the 'technically aboriginals' and 'actual aboriginals' and I realize this might marginalize those with partial ancestry. I often wonder if the voice is just being pushed by super liberal very light skinned aboriginals (that to me probably never suffered real discrimination) or outback dark skinned tribal bush aboriginals (that are discriminated against on site). I feel like the more bush you go, the more conservative you get...idk
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    No, I'm not talking about subjective experience at all. ALL that happened was that I made a generalization, and other people wanted to contest it because, well, they could. It's not more complicated than that. It's basically if I said most action movies have a car chase or gun fight, and someone wanted to die on the hill claiming that that generalization is inaccurate and not all action movies have to have a gun fight or car chase. I agree though that the discrimination of aboriginals is politicized though, and it shouldn't be.
  - riatin 4y ago
    Based on my (very) subjective experience, a lot of the noise around the Voice + Invasion Day is being created by people with extremely tenuous links to indigenous heritage - which I think is maybe shifting away from what could be much more positive outcomes for truly marginalised Aboriginals.
  - sgt 4y ago
    Basically white people who - to their delight - realized they are "aboriginals".
nyolfen 4y ago
some of them may not want their legal privileges backed by historical narratives compromised by scientific findings; this is very common with native american tribes, for instance the lipan apaches in texas. additional science can only hurt their position with respect to the BIA.
- justatdotin 4y ago
  no: The (only recently created) legal privileges of native title are severely limited and can be effortlessly extinguished. These limited privileges are based on (belated) recognition of prior occupation, but irrespective of how long people were here before colonisation. on the other side of the ledger, significant legal harms are imposed on predominantly Indigenous regions, including apartheid-style laws that are applied on the basis of race, and lower standards of basic services provided through dedicated streams again predicated on race.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    there are reasons to believe that some groups with legal claims have no legitimate grounds and only point to fragmentary records of prior occupants that they can provide no evidence of connection with. perhaps if you can manage to think past the scary words you can recognize that some people exploit systems to their advantage.
    - justatdotin 4y ago
      what reasons, what legal claims, and most of all: what advantage do you imagine Indigenous Australian people might gain on the basis of the extent of their heritage? the sustained deficit of public housing? the lack of safe drinking water? the big blue signs slandering entire communities as drunken perverts? the mass sackings to force people onto quarantined welfare? the draconian star-chamber powers granted to the ACC? the systemic theft of hard-won social infrastructure? because all of these 'advantages' are granted to anyone living in predominantly Indigenous postcodes of the NT, regardless of how long you dare to admit their ancestors were here.

ajross 4y ago

And I'm saying the place to have that fight is with the putative Aboriginals and not here on HN where everyone is just talking about the science. I mean, I get it. People are mean. People are unreasonable. Lots of good discussion can't happen because people are mean and unreasonable. But you're not making things better by assuming bad faith and throwing shade at everyone else preemptively. That's just being mean and unreasonable.

yieldcrv 4y ago
It was very insightful for me to know that its common amongst Aboriginals there to have that view. I will corroborate it elsewhere now what I know what to look for.
- riatin 4y ago
  Suggest you look at most popular mastheads in Australia, in particular the state funded broadcaster to see the phenomenon play out in reality.
Zurrrrr 4y ago
No reason to say that though. The person you replied to was saying it is a shame it is an emotionally charged discussion and he is right. That one particular discussion on HN might not be emotionally charged doesn't negate his point. Were you just pretending not to understand?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The best way to get an emotionally charged discussion on Hacker News is to put a caveat that it's unfortunate that a topic is emotionally charged. It's a lightning rod and discussion bridge for people who just want debate controversial issues. I certainly have been on both sides of it.

girvo 4y ago

> Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful. No, they do not all do this, and I'd caution you on speaking for a people that aren't a monolith within their mobs in the first place.

thomasfromcdnjs 4y ago
Aha I thought about replying to the parent comment. (Long time no see)
- girvo 4y ago
  Haha hows it going mate! There's a lot of sweeping generalisations in this thread. Should be expected considering the audience, I guess, but it's still disappointing
Zurrrrr 4y ago
[flagged]
- girvo 4y ago
  Right, so you're allowed to spout whatever idiocy you want, but others aren't allowed to call you on it. Sounds about right. You grew up in Aus apparently, but seem to have very little understand of ATSI culture and how diverse it is. Come work with my partner at IUIH and then generalise the way you have been. Generalise disparate groups of people elsewhere. And shove off with your thought terminating cliches: it's not pearl clutching, it's educating you, because you apparently require it.
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - dawdaway 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful. I mean, if we are going to make these kinds of broad generalizations and comparisons, could we at least change “Native Americans” to “Christian fundamentalists”. It’s not any less true.

Zurrrrr 4y ago
[flagged]
- yesenadam 4y ago
  Ok, I give up. That's about the 20th mocking, insulting comment of yours I've read on this page, while you pretend to occupy the high ground. Sickening stuff. HN deserves way better. Please refresh on the guidelines. There aren't many in the first 10 paragraphs of the "In comments" guidelines you haven't broken on this page, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    Thanks for your input.
    - yesenadam 4y ago
      No problem, I'm sure it's not just me who felt that. Also, please consider that even if you were totally right about everything and everyone you interacted with totally wrong, that would be no justification at all for the way you've carried on on this page.
      - Zurrrrr 4y ago
        Thanks for letting me know.

thoi3u4o2i34324 4y ago

[flagged]

Zurrrrr 4y ago
I didn't know that, but yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing that, that was interesting to learn.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

justatdotin 4y ago

what I've noticed in my lifetime is that the attempted narratives of mainstream science continue to edge towards original local knowledge. if locals abandoned their knowledge and accepted the 40,000ya story told when I was a kid, they'd be out by just as much given the 80,000ya now indicated by artefacts at M2, Madjedbebe; the oldest site of continual human habitation.

Zurrrrr 4y ago
If I'm understanding you correctly, there are some things revealed by science that seem to match some kinds of ancient knowledge, but that could easily just be coincidence.