Are Aboriginals better off for European colonisation?

[Father Jack]

Hello

I have decided to start a thread due to an interesting discussion we have been having on the main board in regards to Australia Day (I have searched and I found no thread about this here, but it was a quick search). Should Aboriginals be gratefual for the benefits they enjoy today due to the Brits parking their yacht in Sydney Harbour in 1788? Is the average Aussie happier than their indigenous counterpart of 222 years ago? Is western civilisation the peak of human achievement?

Please discuss. For the record my thoughts are posted on the main board. I shall cut'n'paste if this thread attracts any interest at all.

Thank you.

Drunken Irish Catholic Priest.

 

[Saint KFC]

Can open, worms everywhere.

 

[Father Jack]

Isn't that what the SRP board is for?

 

[Audacious]

The Australian Aborigines were a very diverse people. The way of life of an Arnhem Land tribe would have been very different from a tribe from the Port Phillip Bay area. Most Aboriginals lived, unsurprisingly, in the areas that are the most populated today. I haven't a link for that at the moment, I heard it in a lecture a year or two ago when I studied Australian military history, in this case conflicts between the Aboriginals and the Europeans. If you want I will search.

I thought aboriginies were nomadic and moved from one place to another all the time.

My argument is that I don't think that Aboriginals are better off for having been colonised by Europeans, and it follows that I don't think that they would be worse off if they didn't. I absolutely don't accept that our way of life is better than the tribal life practiced by the original inhapitants of this continent. Is the average Aussie today happier than the average Koori or Murri of 300 years ago? Who knows?

i don't really want to get into a long winded arguement about this. But it comes back to the point that should Australia day be moved to May simply because some aboriginies think the day is an insult to them?

My response is no. If we bow to the demands of every minority group then Australia will quickly become a country i wouldnt recognise. We now live in a country ruled by a democratic government, and if it were put to a vote i think the majority of Australians would vote no to moving Australia Day.

Sure aboriginies still make up part of our society, but we cant go changing things for a minority group that would piss off the majority of our population. Should we forgo Christmas celebrations because the islamic people who have moved to Australia are offended by it?

 

[KevinCat07]

Absolutley. They were borderline savages untill the Brits came in and taught them the correct ways of life, but there is only so much we can do seeing as most of them refuse our help and only take it when they feel like it.

The same is with extreme Arab Islamists and the middle eastern countries, hopefully our occupation there has brought them out of the dark ages. Although it will be a very long process.

It's unfortunate some things haven't changed with the Aboriginals (the ones that are only interested in boozing it all day long).

 

[Father Jack]

The Aboriginals are more than a minority group I think

 

[Ted38]

Mick Dodson would have to be, just think if the Irish connection was missing from his background he wouldn't be here let alone Australian of the Year.

 

[skilts]

Splendid topic for discussion. When I'm in a better condition than I am now, I'll make something approaching an intelligible contribution.

 

[Wednesday]

Colonisation was inevitable.

The question should be are Aborigines better off or worse off than they would have been had the French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch or Germans got here first.

Discuss.

 

[Rosstickle]

The Aboriginals are more than a minority group I think

They make up about 2.5% of the population. Regardless of whether or not they are native they are a minority.

Colonisation was inevitable.

The question should be are Aborigines better off or worse off than they would have been had the French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch or Germans got here first.

Discuss.

The Aztecs are doing quite well.

 

[Fire]

Absolutley. They were borderline savages untill the Brits came in and taught them the correct ways of life,

No one knows the correct way of life. Including the Brits.

but there is only so much we can do seeing as most of them refuse our help and only take it when they feel like it.

As everyone is entitled to do.

The same is with extreme Arab Islamists and the middle eastern countries, hopefully our occupation there has brought them out of the dark ages. Although it will be a very long process.

Every civilization thinks they are superior, and everyone else unenlightened.

It's unfortunate some things haven't changed with the Aboriginals (the ones that are only interested in boozing it all day long).

I'd say an Aboriginal boozing all day long is a pretty big change in lifestyle.

 

[Fire]

In answer to the OP,

there is no answer.

There is no measurement for "better off".

They are simply different.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

If you're hypothesising the alternative that they continued to exist untouched by the outside world right up until today, then you could make a good argument either way.

If you accept that the place had to be colonised by somebody sooner or later, then I think they could have done a lot worse.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Uh oh.....

Did the aborigional culture have problems with alcoholism before the europeans.


Probably not, infact the noongars nearly had their entire culture wiped out due to Europeans,

 

[cancat]

REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!

XERXES: The aquaduct?

REG: What?

XERXES: The aquaduct

REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.

LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?

REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

MATTHIAS: And the roads.

REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--

COMMANDO: Irrigation.

XERXES: Medicine.

COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...

COMMANDO #2: Education.

COMMANDOS: Ohh...

REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

COMMANDO #1: And the wine.

COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...

FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

COMMANDO: Public baths.

LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.

COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES: Brought peace.

REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

 

[ssfc0203]

They make up about 2.5% of the population. Regardless of whether or not they are native they are a minority.



The Aztecs are doing quite well.

The aztec civilization was already in decline by the time of the Spanish conquest.

 

[medusala]

In answer to the OP,

there is no answer.

There is no measurement for "better off".

They are simply different.

Have you ever lived in Tasmania in winter? I suggest that the ability to light a fire is rather handy.

Just a thought.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Absolutley. They were borderline savages untill the Brits came in and taught them the correct ways of life, but there is only so much we can do seeing as most of them refuse our help and only take it when they feel like it.

The same is with extreme Arab Islamists and the middle eastern countries, hopefully our occupation there has brought them out of the dark ages. Although it will be a very long process.

It's unfortunate some things haven't changed with the Aboriginals (the ones that are only interested in boozing it all day long).

A very surprising response from KevinCat . They seemed to function fairly well for over 40000 years before colonisation and I am sure the rates of infant mortality and chronic heart disease were not as bad as they are today. However, one has to be careful to avoid the notion of the 'noble savage' as this is almost as bad as condemning Aborigines as uncivilised. For a detailed discussion of the reasons behind the conquering of certain civilisations by certain other civilisation check out Jarred Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

 

[drew_j]

A very surprising response from KevinCat . They seemed to function fairly well for over 40000 years before colonisation and I am sure the rates of infant mortality and chronic heart disease were not as bad as they are today. However, one has to be careful to avoid the notion of the 'noble savage' as this is almost as bad as condemning Aborigines as uncivilised. For a detailed discussion of the reasons behind the conquering of certain civilisations by certain other civilisation check out Jarred Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

That's popularist BS that's not even fit to be called science. The only reason people pay attention to Diamond is because his theory’s sit so happily with the tree hugger lefty agenda. This book has been criticised by it's admirers for being weak in argument for christ sake.

 

[Papa G]

Ask the 22 running around a NT oval this weekend. I wonder if they would trade it all in for the "simpler" life of pre 1788.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

There are pros and cons of both options. They didn't suffer disease until we arrived, nor did they have alcohol problems or the severe anxiety and mental anguish they commonly suffer from now.

On the plus side, they are exposed to education and health services (though both have inherent problems due to the way aboriginals have communicated for thousands of years - i.e. they don't ask questions of their doctors becuase culturally aboriginals have always assumed that somebody saying something to them is providing them just enough information to work it out for themselves) and probably live slightly longer lives than they previously did.

The biggest 'issue' between aboriginals and whites is the communication barrier. They may very well understand english, but thousands of years living a completely different lifestyle to that of western europeans mean many things we take for granted in conversation, make absolutely no sense to an aboriginal. We are basically expecting them to take on thousands of years of european history, and the effect that has had on the way we communicate, and absorb it in 200 years.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I bet you there life expectancy has gone down since European colonisation

 

[Contra Mundum]

Ask the 22 running around a NT oval this weekend. I wonder if they would trade it all in for the "simpler" life of pre 1788.

Churlish post of the year - why don't you personally ask the Burgoyne's what they think of that opinion

 

[jazz]

You'd surely have to say no wouldn't you?

Sure, they wouldn't have modern health services etc. but they'd be a lot happier living their traditional nomadic lifestyle.

They wouldn't miss what they didn't know about.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I bet you there life expectancy has gone down since European colonisation

Possibly - they didn't have disease until European's brought them.

Anxiety, alcoholism, diabetes, depression etc would all have been much lower even non-existent.

Mind you, they were pretty war-like (a lot of the war-like tribes have been wiped out though) so its hard to really say.