Kalgoorlie Racism (government endorsed)

[Garlic muncher]

Exploits the locals but keeps a facade of faux paternalism. That welfare card that he so pushes is racist pure, and simple. If you're indigenous, and unemployed you face a completely different outcome to if you're white, that's almost a textbook definition.

Big on rhetoric having a go, non existant on ideas fixing anything, wouldn't surprise if you are mixed up between CJ Rhodes and CJ Dennis.

 

[JackOutback]

It applies to whites as well

Yep, all those whites living in indigenous communities

It's also not working apparently, with no reduction in meth use, but an increase in crime, prostitution and rorting. Go Twiggers.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

LOL, when did i say that Aboriginals only arrived 4,000 years you drongo, what i said was that 4,000 years ago it appears that Indians most likely Dravidians arrived in another wave of migration.

That is according to DNA testing, it is also likely they bought the dingo with them, which BTW did not make it to Tassie, which BTW was the last place in Australia where the Thylacine survived!.

I also said that anyone who has spent some time in the NW of WA can see many physical similarities between Dravidians or Southern Indians and Aboriginals.

There is also apparently many similarities between the Tamil language and Aboriginal languages.

LOL, you don't know your own argument. Ahh, who are we kidding - you are simply backtracking. Here's your first quote:

This comes across as an ignorant post, unless you subscribe to a 'one people ' theory, there are at least 3 distinct waves of migration to Australia who swept all before them before Europeans, maybe you should reserve your hand wringing for the Pygmy tribes of North Qld who were hunted to extinction save some small tribes deep in Nth QLD rainforest by what we term as Aboriginals now.

So you claim three times in one paragraph that indigenous "waves of migration" were removing previous indigenous groups, claiming Gough came across as "ignorant" for not knowing that the people dispossesed by post-1788 immigration had themselves dispossesed others. Which is wrong. As we said.

You labelled that response "pathetic drivel" and so off the back of your claims of "3 distinct waves of migration" then mentioned "possible evidence of a Indian connection in the NW of WA about 4,000 ago via genetic markers". I pointed out that small areas of inter-mingling is a separate argument, nothing like your claim that "waves of migration" were sweeping "all before them" and hunting previous indigenous "to extinction save some small tribes". You now claim you weren't suggesting that, while still using identical language to what you used originally and what you said was "possible":

what i said was that 4,000 years ago it appears that Indians most likely Dravidians arrived in another wave of migration.

But who knows what you would claim you believe now when talking to someone else, because your arguing is disingenuous. Fred and myself pointed out to you that a shorter group of people in a small section of Queensland does not equate to a different migration group, and you then ignored all that to claim that our references meant:

LOL, you denied they existed.

Now apparently they do

Daft. Just like you weirdly claim that Stormfront is mentioned by Fred a lot, which is also a lie, and then you respond to him pointing that lie out with:

You are probably busy on Stormfront

Doubly daft. Get over your own ego and deal with facts.

That dingo/tool theory was only suggested due to the coincidence of time (a theory which has since been un-done by the discovery of tools in the Sydney area pre-dating the apparent Indian visit by 4,000 years, and in Nth QLD by 9,000 years). For people interested in what else researchers said:

“We don’t claim the dingo and changes in stone tool technologies came with these migrants. We suggest that maybe they accompanied the people.”

Historic hair samples collected from Aboriginal people show that following an initial migration 50,000 years ago, populations spread rapidly around the east and west coasts of Australia.

Our research, published in Nature today, also shows that once settled, Aboriginal groups remained in their discrete geographical regions right up until the arrival of Europeans a few hundred years ago.

...The genetic lineages show that the first Aboriginal populations swept around the coasts of Australia in two parallel waves. One went clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, before meeting somewhere in South Australia.

The occupation of the coasts was rapid, perhaps taking no longer than 2,000 to 3,000 years. But after that, the genetic patterns suggest that populations quickly settled down into specific territory or country, and have moved very little since.

The genetic lineages within each region are clearly very divergent. They tell us that people – once settled in a particular landscape – stayed connected within their realms for up to 50,000 years despite huge environmental and climate changes.

Of course we're all aware of how different cultures are due to the existence of lots of different language groups. Yet you refer vaguely to similarities between Tamil and "Aboriginal languages", without acknowledgement of how limited that hypothesised influence is.

 

[Garlic muncher]

LOL, you don't know your own argument. Ahh, who are we kidding - you are simply backtracking. Here's your first quote:

So you claim three times in one paragraph that indigenous "waves of migration" were removing previous indigenous groups, claiming Gough came across as "ignorant" for not knowing that the people dispossesed by post-1788 immigration had themselves dispossesed others. Which is wrong. As we said.

You labelled that response "pathetic drivel" and so off the back of your claims of "3 distinct waves of migration" then mentioned "possible evidence of a Indian connection in the NW of WA about 4,000 ago via genetic markers". I pointed out that small areas of inter-mingling is a separate argument, nothing like your claim that "waves of migration" were sweeping "all before them" and hunting previous indigenous "to extinction save some small tribes". You now claim you weren't suggesting that, while still using identical language to what you used originally and what you said was "possible":


But who knows what you would claim you believe now when talking to someone else, because your arguing is disingenuous. Fred and myself pointed out to you that a shorter group of people in a small section of Queensland does not equate to a different migration group, and you then ignored all that to claim that our references meant:

Daft. Just like you weirdly claim that Stormfront is mentioned by Fred a lot, which is also a lie, and then you respond to him pointing that lie out with:

Doubly daft. Get over your own ego and deal with facts.

That dingo/tool theory was only suggested due to the coincidence of time (a theory which has since been un-done by the discovery of tools in the Sydney area pre-dating the apparent Indian visit by 4,000 years, and in Nth QLD by 9,000 years). For people interested in what else researchers said:


Of course we're all aware of how different cultures are due to the existence of lots of different language groups. Yet you refer vaguely to similarities between Tamil and "Aboriginal languages", without acknowledgement of how limited that hypothesised influence is.

Believe what you want, this is from the article you linked .....


I think the simplest explanation is that we don’t yet have enough data to provide a clear answer, from the DNA or human fossil remains. Archaeology is clearly very important, but not the full picture.

Aboriginal Australians have without doubt been living here for tens of thousand of years, but whether they were completely (genetically) isolated until 1788 is not yet certain.

What about the dingo? The latest genetic research suggests it may have come from New Guinea or even directly from Taiwan by Austronesian speaking people, with no indications of India ancestry whatsoever.

The burden of proof lies with those proposing the idea of a link between some Indigenous Australians and far away India, because the alternative view is the one that receives support from other kinds of evidence.

Also, I think it’s way too easy to ‘cherry-pick’ the physical anthropology, linguistic and archaeological literature, as geneticists are prone to doing, when the picture emerging from all these areas of research is much more complicated than most geneticists would concede.

Still, we’ve come a long way since Huxley’s insightful speculation, and who know’s whether he’ll ultimately be proved right.

 

[Rob]

Exploits the locals but keeps a facade of faux paternalism. That welfare card that he so pushes is racist pure, and simple. If you're indigenous, and unemployed you face a completely different outcome to if you're white, that's almost a textbook definition.

You're actually right, but how else do you deal with a situation that us, as a society, chooses to treat differently in the first place because of race? It's inevitable that any specific treatment will also be racist.

If the people in remote communities were white, we would be saying to them to move closer to a major centre in order to get a job. They'd also be a lot more likely to have their kids removed and probably a lot more likely to be in jail from crimes relating to domestic violence and pedophilia (amongst others). Apparently if you're an aboriginal victim of these crimes you are deemed less worthy of investigation. Let's assume they were treated like this, and the howls of racism would be heard on the other side of the world as well.

So how do you fix the problem without being racist?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Believe what you want

I'll believe in facts, until someone proves them to be incorrect. That is science. There are a humongous amount of facts that will not be proven incorrect within our observable physical dimension, so don't confuse that statement for some undergraduate notion that 'everything is subjective, maaaan.'

this is from the article you linked .....


I think the simplest explanation is that we don’t yet have enough data to provide a clear answer, from the DNA or human fossil remains. Archaeology is clearly very important, but not the full picture.

Aboriginal Australians have without doubt been living here for tens of thousand of years, but whether they were completely (genetically) isolated until 1788 is not yet certain.

What about the dingo? The latest genetic research suggests it may have come from New Guinea or even directly from Taiwan by Austronesian speaking people, with no indications of India ancestry whatsoever.

The burden of proof lies with those proposing the idea of a link between some Indigenous Australians and far away India, because the alternative view is the one that receives support from other kinds of evidence.

Also, I think it’s way too easy to ‘cherry-pick’ the physical anthropology, linguistic and archaeological literature, as geneticists are prone to doing, when the picture emerging from all these areas of research is much more complicated than most geneticists would concede.

Still, we’ve come a long way since Huxley’s insightful speculation, and who know’s whether he’ll ultimately be proved right.

Yep, and because I can tell from your previous arguments and how you have phrased this, that you still aren't understanding the issue, I will point out to you that when they say "the alternative view is the one that receives support from other kinds of evidence" - they mean the evidence is AGAINST Huxley's theory. That isn't surprising since Huxley was commenting in 1870 and basing his ideas on aesthetic similarities. i.e. He's not making a solid case at all. You want to throw your weight in with a bloke who divides the world up by 9 skin colours and thinks Indigenous don't have frizzy hair?

You're actually right, but how else do you deal with a situation that us, as a society, chooses to treat differently in the first place because of race? It's inevitable that any specific treatment will also be racist.

If the people in remote communities were white, we would be saying to them to move closer to a major centre in order to get a job. They'd also be a lot more likely to have their kids removed and probably a lot more likely to be in jail from crimes relating to domestic violence and pedophilia (amongst others). Apparently if you're an aboriginal victim of these crimes you are deemed less worthy of investigation. Let's assume they were treated like this, and the howls of racism would be heard on the other side of the world as well.

So how do you fix the problem without being racist?

Crime statistics overwhelmingly disagree with you on who is likely to be in jail. You're choosing to believe sensationalist journalism over a non-stop stream of standard journalism.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I'll believe in facts, until someone proves them to be incorrect. That is science. There are a humongous amount of facts that will not be proven incorrect within our observable physical dimension, so don't confuse that statement for some undergraduate notion that 'everything is subjective, maaaan.'

Yep, and because I can tell from your previous arguments and how you have phrased this, that you still aren't understanding the issue, I will point out to you that when they say "the alternative view is the one that receives support from other kinds of evidence" - they mean the evidence is AGAINST Huxley's theory. That isn't surprising since Huxley was commenting in 1870 and basing his ideas on aesthetic similarities. i.e. He's not making a solid case at all. You want to throw your weight in with a bloke who divides the world up by 9 skin colours and thinks Indigenous don't have frizzy hair?

.

A German study in 2013 linked Aboriginal DNA with a influx of Dravidian/Tamil/South Indian - take your pick approximately 4,000 years ago.

New DNA research suggests a genetic relationship between Australia's Indigenous people and more recently arrived Indian migrants, which blended together long after Asiatic populations also descended to the continent.

The German study, published today, genetically sampled populations from across the region and concluded that there was a “substantial gene flow between Indian and Australia populations”, occurring 141 generations ago or about 4,230 years ago.

This challenges the prevailing view that Australia's Indigenous population was genetically isolated from the rest of the world prior to European contact.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/01/15/dna-confirms-recent-indian-influx

As i said, believe the facts you want.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Crime statistics overwhelmingly disagree with you on who is likely to be in jail. You're choosing to believe sensationalist journalism over a non-stop stream of standard journalism.

Just out of interest how many isolated Aboriginal communities or for that matter Aboriginal communities have you done work in either a payed capacity or as a volunteer ?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

A German study in 2013 linked Aboriginal DNA with a influx of Dravidian/Tamil/South Indian - take your pick approximately 4,000 years ago.

New DNA research suggests a genetic relationship between Australia's Indigenous people and more recently arrived Indian migrants, which blended together long after Asiatic populations also descended to the continent.

The German study, published today, genetically sampled populations from across the region and concluded that there was a “substantial gene flow between Indian and Australia populations”, occurring 141 generations ago or about 4,230 years ago.

This challenges the prevailing view that Australia's Indigenous population was genetically isolated from the rest of the world prior to European contact.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/01/15/dna-confirms-recent-indian-influx

As i said, believe the facts you want.

I get there's a chance here that you are just trying to keep up the appearance of an argument, rather than actually thinking you are making a new point, but I have to highlight that you're quoting the same study that we've already been discussing. Are you going to just reply to all our points by repeating stuff?

As I have pointed out multiple times (as can be seen over the last couple of pages), there have been small moments of interaction with outside ethnic groups. That is not what you were talking about with your claims of waves of immigration sweeping "all before them", and if it is what you still believe, you are wrong.

Oh, and patting yourself on the back for working with indigenous doesn't undo your errors and generalisations. You aren't in a One Nation meeting here.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I get there's a chance here that you are just trying to keep up the appearance of an argument, rather than actually thinking you are making a new point, but I have to highlight that you're quoting the same study that we've already been discussing. Are you going to just reply to all our points by repeating stuff?

As I have pointed out multiple times (as can be seen over the last couple of pages), there have been small moments of interaction with outside ethnic groups. That is not what you were talking about with your claims of waves of immigration sweeping "all before them", and if it is what you still believe, you are wrong.

Oh, and patting yourself on the back for working with indigenous doesn't undo your errors and generalisations. You aren't in a One Nation meeting here.

Small moments of interaction is not 11%.

And please tell me, how many isolated Aboriginal communities or any Aboriginal communities you have visited working in a payed capacity or volunteering your time ?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Small moments of interaction is not 11%.

And please tell me, how many isolated Aboriginal communities or any Aboriginal communities you have visited working in a payed capacity or volunteering your time ?

My personal life is none of your business. You already received a compliment for working with the indigenous. The fact you're still fishing for those compliments while making wildly inaccurate claims about indigenous doesn't reflect as well on your character as you think it does.

What is this "11%" figure that you have freshly plucked from somewhere to distract us with? You seem to have once again ignored most of the story - like the fact the study is the same one already discussed, that the quote is "as much as 11%" (i.e. that was the highest they found in their study - not an average as you want to pretend) and that the study is limited to one part of Australia? Your constant spinning of this story doesn't reflect as well on your supposed "facts" as you think it does.

 

[Garlic muncher]

My personal life is none of your business. You already received a compliment for working with the indigenous. The fact you're still fishing for those compliments while making wildly inaccurate claims about indigenous doesn't reflect as well on your character as you think it does.

What is this "11%" figure that you have freshly plucked from somewhere to distract us with?

LOL, you are just typical of a whinger, it really is harder at the coalface, than whinging about everything from your ivory castle.

Prepared to potshot from afar, but have no answers yourself


Much more surprising was the discovery of the more recent genetic mix with people from India, from which Australian Aborigines derive an estimated 11% of their DNA.

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/indi...rbred-4200-years-ago-sharing-dna-and-dingoes/

BTW i am not asking you about your personal life, like i would give a s**t, i am asking you if you have ever worked in a Isolated Aboriginal community or indeed any Aboriginal community in a volunteer or payed capacity ?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

LOL, you are just typical of a whinger, it really is harder at the coalface, than whinging about everything from your ivory castle.

Prepared to potshot from afar, but have no answers yourself


Much more surprising was the discovery of the more recent genetic mix with people from India, from which Australian Aborigines derive an estimated 11% of their DNA.

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/indi...rbred-4200-years-ago-sharing-dna-and-dingoes/

BTW i am not asking you about your personal life, like i would give a s**t, i am asking you if you have ever worked in a Isolated Aboriginal community or indeed any Aboriginal community in a volunteer or payed capacity ?

No, you are playing 'ad hominem' politics, because you think you deserve huge credit for working with indigenous kids at one point in your life. As has already been highlighted, you used those photos beforehand under a different avatar. This has zero bearing on your backing of dodgy theories with no evidence that suggested waves of indigenous migration had "swept all before them" including Australian pygmies.

And, no, linking to an article on a non-adacemic site that repeats the same story from the previous sites doesn't equate to more evidence. The sample is only from Australia's north, and is not representative of indigenous Australia as a whole. As the study itself says:

Lastly, although the Australian samples presented in this study come from a broad geographical area of the Northern Territories of Australia, they might not be representative of the Australian aboriginals as a whole. As others (12) have pointed out, comprehensive studies of the genetic variation in Australia would be very desirable to further understand their increasingly complex history.

And just so you are once again confronted with your wrongess. The study you keep referring was summarised by Max Planck with this note:

Australia holds some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the presence of modern humans outside Africa, with the earliest sites dated to at least 45,000 years ago, making Australian aboriginals one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa.

Continuous - as in not replaced by outside migration. More recent studies have provided more evidence that the number is closer to 60,000 than 45,000 yrs. So the more you link to this study as being strong evidence, the more damage you are doing to your initial claim.

It's also spelt "paid", not "payed", when regarding $.

 

[Rob]

Crime statistics overwhelmingly disagree with you on who is likely to be in jail. You're choosing to believe sensationalist journalism over a non-stop stream of standard journalism.

Jesus Christ, if you're actually denying there's a problem in some of these remote communities then we're obviously wasting our time talking about how to fix it.

 

[Gough]

Small moments of interaction is not 11%.

And please tell me, how many isolated Aboriginal communities or any Aboriginal communities you have visited working in a payed capacity or volunteering your time ?

I love this, come to WA, and you'll understand why we're racists. Nice one. How many Muslim countries have you spent time, and worked in mate? Doesn't stop you from proffering your opinions there does it.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I love this, come to WA, and you'll understand why we're racists. Nice one. How many Muslim countries have you spent time, and worked in mate? Doesn't stop you from proffering your opinions there does it.

The standard is set at my personal life is none of your business, so whether i have visited or worked in a Muslim country means SFA.

When i do offer up some personal experience, i am fishing for compliments, or at a one nation meeting but patting myself on the back.

Yet not one idea or solution is put forward by yourself or other members of the cheap pot shot brigade.

 

[TimmeT]

I love this, come to WA, and you'll understand why we're racists. Nice one. How many Muslim countries have you spent time, and worked in mate? Doesn't stop you from proffering your opinions there does it.

Same could be asked of you? However I wouldn't blame you if you have never been to them ever considering the unfortunate way they treat people with your sexual preference.

 

[Power Raid]

A couple of snippets from the Oz. I don't have a link as it was received via an iron ore update

 

[skilts]

The problem with sit-down money and remote communities is that there is often no work because there is no economic reason for the settlements to exist. They exist because of cultural attachment to the land.

You can't break the cycle without removing the attachment to the land.

It is hard to imagine a solution. I don't know what the solution is.

Is it possible that there is no solution? Successive governments, at least since the 1950s, have tried to 'fix' the Aboriginal 'problem'. With the best will in the world, good people have tried to provide a solution, without success. Now maybe they were incompetent, or didn't understand the 'problem', but throwing money at the 'problem' certainly hasn't worked. Dunno.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Is it possible that there is no solution? Successive governments, at least since the 1950s, have tried to 'fix' the Aboriginal 'problem'. With the best will in the world, good people have tried to provide a solution, without success. Now maybe they were incompetent, or didn't understand the 'problem', but throwing money at the 'problem' certainly hasn't worked. Dunno.

I honestly don't know. My gut feeling is that the root cause of the problem is the cultural attachment to place. But can you change that without destroying the culture? Can you change it to a cultural attachment to a people without fundamentally altering it, do the myths and stories behind the culture survive such a change without being connected to a particular place? I don't know.

 

[Power Raid]

The solution was pretty simple but unfortunately in the Whitlam's desire to fix a wrong he dug an even bigger whole. The initial problem was sub-award wages and instead of changing gears in a measured manner the workers were chucked off the land.

Over night the workers found themselves unemployed, no longer getting home cooked meal three times a day and without purpose. Generations down the track we have just a few last healthy survivors and beneath that generations of welfare, drug abuse, health issue, no hope and often just one leg or blind.

What should have been done was training and education for the next generation coming through to find alternative opportunities and subsidise the existing workers wages by linking the welfare payments to their current employment or new employment.

The solution is no different today as it was for Whitlam but there is no doubt the problem is just bigger and more complex. This is a 100 year solution and we've only just started.

 

[Mofra]

I honestly don't know. My gut feeling is that the root cause of the problem is the cultural attachment to place. But can you change that without destroying the culture? Can you change it to a cultural attachment to a people without fundamentally altering it, do the myths and stories behind the culture survive such a change without being connected to a particular place? I don't know.

In some respects a lessening of the concept of "place" can add to it, especially online - online collaboration between kids from different mobs (saltwater kids collaborating in art or music with freshwater / desert kids) is a huge growth area.

Many communities have gone from a single phoneline in a post-office to WiFi signals and iPhones, and those that have had less of a technology shock have still had to transition from shared device to personal device usage which has brought both challenges and opportunities.

Police in many NT stations have appointed a dedicated "online officer" to stop online arguments from turning into full blown mob wars. It's an initiative that been successful in reducing (but not eliminating) problems.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Hang on, the educated elite that patrol and moderate these boards say no ....

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ernment-endorsed.1151008/page-7#post-51683791

Seems an astonishingly simplistic approach to suggest that quarantining income will stop this. Sounds like a Twiggy Forrest special to me.

and this

Exploits the locals but keeps a facade of faux paternalism. That welfare card that he so pushes is racist pure, and simple. If you're indigenous, and unemployed you face a completely different outcome to if you're white, that's almost a textbook definition.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ernment-endorsed.1151008/page-7#post-51700821

 

[strung_out7]

Anyone see the Karl o'callaghan video just released, highlighting what is really happening in WA? Or is this just fake news?

 

[strung_out7]

I love this, come to WA, and you'll understand why we're racists. Nice one. How many Muslim countries have you spent time, and worked in mate? Doesn't stop you from proffering your opinions there does it.

See our police commissioner and his video of what our state cops and people have to put up with?