Are Aboriginals better off for European colonisation? - Part 2

[Ggotto]

From part 1, 2009: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...r-off-for-european-colonisation.539265/page-7

The Aboriginals are more than a minority group I think

Don't think that is the answer even if it correct, a minority's group in a democracy is what it is regardless of its worth.

 

[Ggotto]

Well, the question is of utopian nature. Any groups of people and especially the aborigines in question, need to adapt in order to survive a stronger resolution of their natural cause.

 

[Summer Nights]

They kill each other less now and they live longer. Their lives still seem unfortunate now though. So sad.

 

[kfc1]

There is no doubt the answer to the thread title is a resounding yes by pretty much any sensible metric you can think of.

 

[Lethality]

In the long run they will be.

 

[apparentlydead]

Truly amazing that in 2009 there was a now banned poster espousing Bolt-esque lines with great vigour...his username...NoSpinZone.

I wonder.

 

[romeohwho]

Nope-not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[kfc1]

Nope-not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[fleabitten]

There is no doubt the answer to the thread title is a resounding yes by pretty much any sensible metric you can think of.

You're just not thinking of enough metrics.

 

[romeohwho]

The indigenous have lost their land, knowledge, rituals ,their language, their lives, their families, kinships, traditions, their health, their cultural and legal systems have been affected. Lost their independence and confidence.
Much better off, with much richer lifestyle before the arrival of the Europeans.

 

[apparentlydead]

The indigenous have lost their land, knowledge, rituals ,their language, their lives, their families, kinships, traditions, their health, their cultural and legal systems have been affected. Lost their independence and confidence.
Much better off, with much richer lifestyle before the arrival of the Europeans.

Yeah, but apart from that?

 

[kfc1]

The indigenous have lost their land, knowledge, rituals ,their language, their lives, their families, kinships, traditions, their health, their cultural and legal systems have been affected. Lost their independence and confidence.
Much better off, with much richer lifestyle before the arrival of the Europeans.

You going to list the improvements or just one side of the equation?

 

[fleabitten]

You going to list the improvements or just one side of the equation?

While some have access to the "improvements", indigenous Aussies generally benefit less from modern conveniences and developments than the rest of us, particularly when you're talking about those in remote communities.

 

[apparentlydead]

While some have access to the "improvements", indigenous Aussies generally benefit less from modern conveniences and developments than the rest of us, particularly when you're talking about those in remote communities.

That's their fault because they made a 'lifestyle choice'.

They should all come into town and enjoy all the benefits of sleeping on the bed of the Todd River, get pissed out of their minds and eventually die out early, like all good blackfellas.

 

[fleabitten]

Part of the question is really whether you think we'd ALL be better off if we still lived like our hunter-gatherer ancestors of millennia ago. There's no reason why Indigenous Australians would be more or less well off in a primitive society than a modern one, unless you think they're a primitive people. If you think modern society is better than the way we all lived thousands of years ago (as I do), then it's just a matter of whether they have access to the benefits of modern society and unfortunately, many don't. So my answer to the question is "No, but they should be".

 

[kfc1]

While some have access to the "improvements", indigenous Aussies generally benefit less from modern conveniences and developments than the rest of us, particularly when you're talking about those in remote communities.

Of course but that isn't the question, the question is are Aboriginals better off now for European colonisation?

 

[kfc1]

At its most basic, the fact that there are no aborigines who are preferring to live completely on the land, disregarding clothes, shoes, vehicles, european food and drink, housing etc. If they really weren't better off there would be a growing movement to abandon these altogether and go back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, particularly on the larger remote aboriginal lands.

I don't think it's a particularly useful or relevant question to be debating though. A more useful question would be, e.g. how do we quantify the effect that remote living has on indigenous disadvantage?

 

[fleabitten]

Of course but that isn't the question, the question is are Aboriginals better off now for European colonisation?

For the ones living in 3rd world conditions, clearly not.

If you asked an Indigenous lawyer who had a relatively mainstream upbringing in regional Victoria whether she'd swap lives with her direct female ancestor of 500 years ago, she'd probably prefer to keep her own life, but I don't think there's any question that people in remote communities generally have a much shittier life than their ancestors. There's no reason why Indigenous people can't be successful and happy in modern Australia (many are), it's just that many currently don't have that opportunity.

 

[little graham]

At its most basic, the fact that there are no aborigines who are preferring to live completely on the land, disregarding clothes, shoes, vehicles, european food and drink, housing etc. If they really weren't better off there would be a growing movement to abandon these altogether and go back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, particularly on the larger remote aboriginal lands.

I don't think it's a particularly useful or relevant question to be debating though. A more useful question would be, e.g. how do we quantify the effect that remote living has on indigenous disadvantage?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/yindindji-australias-newest-state.1085680/

 

[Present Not Past]

I present as evidence in the affirmative - Douglas Nicholls.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...wZvCpKINWJ85zEvkQ&sig2=xTTX5BGjbM9aemkswFoaRw

 

[kfc1]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/yindindji-australias-newest-state.1085680/

Yes I remember your wacko thread.
Any post in particular?

 

[kfc1]

For the ones living in 3rd world conditions, clearly not.

If you asked an Indigenous lawyer who had a relatively mainstream upbringing in regional Victoria whether she'd swap lives with her direct female ancestor of 500 years ago, she'd probably prefer to keep her own life, but I don't think there's any question that people in remote communities generally have a much shittier life than their ancestors. There's no reason why Indigenous people can't be successful and happy in modern Australia (many are), it's just that many currently don't have that opportunity.

The actions speak louder than words - even aborigines living in remote communities don't abandon all the benefits of european colonisation for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I'm sure some would wish for it in a nostalgic sense but that's a fair bit different to actually doing it.
What we do have a lot of knowledge of now is mental health etc. - we don't have much knowledge of what the equivalent would have been like pre-1788. The 'noble happy innocent savage' concept is a myth and just like every other culture in the world the knowledge of the good stuff is what is brought forward, rather than the warts and all.

 

[sproketman]

The actions speak louder than words - even aborigines living in remote communities don't abandon all the benefits of european colonisation for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

If they wanted to, could they?

 

[little graham]

 

[sproketman]

This is bad even for you. How could Governor Phillip believe in Darwin's evolutionary [theory] given he was Governor of New South Wales 20 years before Darwin was born?