David Oldfield and Aborigines.

[Bombers 2003]

Anyone here have any opinions on Oldfield's view on Aboriginals as "Primitives"and "Stone Age".And is anyone prepared to let us know how they could of destroyed 500 imaginary species of Flora +Fauna.After all "western"mankind has destroyed more then 500 genuine species worldwide,not just in 1 continent.

 

[evade28]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Anyone here have any opinions on Oldfield's view on Aboriginals as "Primitives"and "Stone Age".And is anyone prepared to let us know how they could of destroyed 500 imaginary species of Flora +Fauna.After all "western"mankind has destroyed more then 500 genuine species worldwide,not just in 1 continent.

i wouldnt call aboriginal culture primitive, just different to ours. im talkin about the ones before the westerners came along. their way of living was very respectful to the environment, unlike ours so i dont know what the hell hes talking about re the destruction of flora and fauna its a bit ironic i think.

 

[Tim56]

i wouldnt call aboriginal culture primitive, just different to ours

How was Aboriginal culture not primitive in 1776? It had not evolved in any kind of significant manner in 40,000 years, and you think it is not primitive? They were "respectful of the environment" because they had no idea of how to use resources to help themselves. It really isn't your fault though, you probably had teachers telling you that **** from day one.

 

[Milkman]

Originally posted by Tim56
How was Aboriginal culture not primitive in 1776? It had not evolved in any kind of significant manner in 40,000 years, and you think it is not primitive?

It shows that it worked, unlike our culture.

Originally posted by Tim56
They were "respectful of the environment" because they had no idea of how to use resources to help themselves.

So how did they survive for so many thousands of years?, on government handouts?

 

[Angry Dragon]

So the locals didn't invent guns and money. They have/had a rich culture. Primitive? Depends on your point of view.

 

[Leaping Lindner]

It's interesting to consider that by October 1788 white settlement at Botany Bay was nearly abandoned as the new inhabitants couldn't cope with the conditions and faced starvation. So much so that Phillip despatched a ship to South Africa for supplies. And yet the Aborigines managed to survive and thrive for 40,000 years (as oppossed to nine months) prior to this. Pretty good going for a "primitive" culture I'd say.

 

[CharlieG]

Unfortunately, the words "primitive" and "stone age" have some negative connotations. But just because someone might be offended, doesn't mean you rewrite history.

Culturally, the aborigines were not primitive at all. They had cultural expressions such as music, dance, religion etc, and also concepts such as international trade and politics.

However, technologically, they were not well advanced. To suggest they were is revising history. They were still using weapons and tools that were outdated in most of the rest of the world. They didn't have anything approaching sophisticated building techniques. They had not developed writing or agriculture. These were things that had appeared millenia ago in other parts of the world.

The Tasmanian aborigines, especially, were technologically limited. They had about 1/5 the amount of different tools and weapons than their mainland counterparts. Their entire inventory consisted of 22 different items, the result of tens of thousands of years of potential development. After Tasmania split from the mainland, there is absolutely no evidence of any innovation in Tasmania at all. In effect, after they became isolated the Tasmanian aborigines stopped developing.

Oldfield could certainly have chosen better words to make his point, but his point is, in regards to technological advancement, correct. The problem is, people immediately see the words he used and assume that its a bad thing (he may have been saying it was bad, I haven't seen a report). As someone else said, if it worked, what was the problem?

 

[Fred]

In 40000 years, we'll probably be looked on as "primitives".

 

[Syd]

Originally posted by Fred
In 40000 years, we'll probably be looked on as "primitives".

For some it wont take nearly that long.....

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Fred
In 40000 years, we'll probably be looked on as "primitives".

no doubt about it


and we will be, compare to those people.


The point of the matter is that the aboriginies were (as CharlieG said) technologically primitive. They were still using stone age weapons and tools.

Doesnt mean that culturally tey were primitive however. They did live a semi nomadic lifestyle, but the oral traditions were excellent.

Depends on your definition of primitive, i guess.

 

[Pessimistic]

European Colonial Christian culture has wiped out more culture an knowledge as well as ecological treasure than we can ever know.

Some people look at ancient artifacts and think the only explaination is that 'more advanced' aliens visited.

Not true - ancient civilisations were far superior in many ways to our current wastern civilizations. we were afraid of them and wiped them out.

Recent events involving Bush and the USA show we 'westerners' still pigheadadly think we are 'better' and other cultures need to be 'liberated' into our way of thinking.

OK so some of out achievements have been very good but why do we think other ways need to be discounted without even a second thought.

 

[evo]

The Tasmanian aborigines, especially, were technologically limited. They had about 1/5 the amount of different tools and weapons than their mainland counterparts. Their entire inventory consisted of 22 different items, the result of tens of thousands of years of potential development. After Tasmania split from the mainland, there is absolutely no evidence of any innovation in Tasmania at all. In effect, after they became isolated the Tasmanian aborigines stopped developing.

I've never read that before,thats really interesting.What a disaster it was that they were wiped out.

 

[Tim56]

It shows that it worked, unlike our culture.

How did it "work"? If you think life being an Aboriginie before 1788 was some paradise, you are very much mistaken.

So how did they survive for so many thousands of years?, on government handouts?

They survived in the most primitive possible way, through hunter gathering. That is no achievement.

It's interesting to consider that by October 1788 white settlement at Botany Bay was nearly abandoned as the new inhabitants couldn't cope with the conditions and faced starvation. So much so that Phillip despatched a ship to South Africa for supplies. And yet the Aborigines managed to survive and thrive for 40,000 years (as oppossed to nine months) prior to this. Pretty good going for a "primitive" culture I'd say.

Any kind of animal can survive in the wild. Simply surviving is no achievement for a civilization.

Let's look at the definition of primitive:

1. early, ancient; at an early level of civilization.

2. undeveloped, crude, simple

3. original, primary

So aboriginal culture was obviously primitive. Decent civilizations actually did more than feed themselves and fight each other.

European Colonial Christian culture has wiped out more culture an knowledge as well as ecological treasure than we can ever know.

And replaced it with something inherently superior.

Some people look at ancient artifacts and think the only explaination is that 'more advanced' aliens visited.

Not true - ancient civilisations were far superior in many ways to our current wastern civilizations. we were afraid of them and wiped them out.

Survival of the fittest. If they were that much superior, they would have wiped us out.

Recent events involving Bush and the USA show we 'westerners' still pigheadadly think we are 'better' and other cultures need to be 'liberated' into our way of thinking.

By every possible measure the West is superior to the east.

OK so some of out achievements have been very good but why do we think other ways need to be discounted without even a second thought.

Because we know better. If you see two cars, one a shiny new BMW 5 Series, and the other a Datsun 120 Y, it is obvious the BMW is better. This is just as obvious.

Culturally, the aborigines were not primitive at all. They had cultural expressions such as music, dance, religion etc, and also concepts such as international trade and politics.

Let's look at their music. They two key instruments are the clap sticks, and the didgeridoo. Primitive as it gets. See, we had moved on to violins and pianos. Religion is the most basic instinct of civilization, and if their dance was that foot stamping you see, it's just as poor as anything else.

Aboriginies are only interesting as an historical oddity, their society and technology being remarkable only for the fact that they had not evolved in 40,000 years.

 

[Z_K]

Jesus...........

 

[Pessimistic]

Tim your dictionary definition is from a 'western' point of view - you even use a literal or legalistic meaning - another example of one of the limitations 'our' soceity puts upon itself.

Aincient civilizations might have been 'replaced' by something superior in many aspects but our biggest limitation is our automatic assumption that our way is automatically the 'best'
eg the egyptians actually biult the pyramids but our soceity can't even work out why they did.
If we had asked them before wiping them out they may have told us.

Our religion is one which actively seeks to remove enlightenment and relpace it with dogma (hence the 'tree' of knowledge story in the bible)

Some pagan religions were actively about finding knowledge but are now dismissed by christians as evil and devil worship even though modern pagans calim the devil is not their invention.

Survival of the fittest ? Surely saddam should still be in power then ? suppose a meathead had killed einstein at an early age ?

I think you are confused between physical and intellectual power.

Quote

By every possible measure the West is superior to the east.

Breathtaking - not only are you wrong but in the wrong argument - I was talking about aincient civilisations not the 'east'. I'm not sure what the 'east' is but you go on to say a mercedes is beter than a datsun, wich is nonsensical but could be countered by saying a honda is superior to a volkswagen

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Originally posted by Tim56

Any kind of animal can survive in the wild. Simply surviving is no achievement for a civilization.



And yet the culturally superior western white man couldn't! Nine lousy months bravo for "western civilization".

I love your column in the Herald Sun by the way. But why do call yourself Andrew?

 

[evade28]

Originally posted by CharlieG
They had not developed writing or agriculture. These were things that had appeared millenia ago in other parts of the world.

they didnt need to develop agriculture because they respected the land which kept it plentiful regarding things they would eat. not like us, go and bulldoze everything down then think 'oh hey we need something to eat, lets develop agriculture'.

 

[Wicked Lester]

I have no wish to buy into this argument and have little respect for Mr Oldfield.

But there are several points raised that are worthy of comment.

The first is the claim that the aboriginal peoples lived in harmony with their environment. Like all peoples Aboriginal Australia modified their environment. They introduced new species and wiped out others. They burnt large areas to create manmade grasslands - in essence they did what all human beings did, they exploited their environment to the best of their ability to make life easier for themselves. Sometimes it worked, other times it didn't, but they learned through trial and error over countless generations and they established a basic model on which a hunter gatherer culture could survive in a harsh environment. And for that they should be admired.

Secondly I query the word 'thrived' used by a poster. They certainly 'survived' and in some areas and at some times probably did 'thrive' - but equally it has been estimated that during times of severe drought the population of Aborignal Australia declined by up to one third - a devastating blow in anyone's terms, but arguably just a way of nature to control numbers.

Perhaps I'm just guilty of applying a 'western' definition to the terms 'thrive'.

 

[Pessimistic]

No doubt aborigines did change many things for the worse environmentally speaking. Looka t the palces man has been the longest and you find deserts - the mediterranean, mid east, australia.

My comment was slightly off subject in that what we call superior 'western' civilization is not always better than the civiliazation it replaced.

 

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by evade28
they didnt need to develop agriculture because they respected the land which kept it plentiful regarding things they would eat. not like us, go and bulldoze everything down then think 'oh hey we need something to eat, lets develop agriculture'.

Err... not quite. The population of aborigines was small - about a million, or, in other words, one individual per every nine or ten square kilometres (obviously the actual population density was higher in more fertile areas, but you get my point). Therefore, the effect on the environment by the aborigines was quite small, but only because their population was itself small. Agriculture, like in other parts of the world, would have allowed the aborigines to live a sedentary rather than nomadic lifestyle, which in turn would have allowed a larger population.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
No doubt aborigines did change many things for the worse environmentally speaking. Looka t the palces man has been the longest and you find deserts - the mediterranean, mid east, australia.

My comment was slightly off subject in that what we call superior 'western' civilization is not always better than the civiliazation it replaced.

There is absolutely no way that the Aboriginal people caused enough land degredation to bring on desert conditions. All these deserts you speak of are primarily due to environmental conditions such as weather patterns.

 

[Rooosterboy]

TIm56 posted:
Religion is the most basic instinct of civilization, and if their dance was that foot stamping you see, it's just as poor as anything else.

I replied:
Ha ha aha hahah there are some many things wrong with that I don't know where to start. Surely the true sign of a civilisation is the realisation that all religion is hokum. What is the difference between foot stamping (as you put it) and kiddy fiddling old guys waving incense burners around in great halls that cost the budgets of minor nations to build whilst their people starve..

As for Oldfield, Hanson et al, if there was ever an argument for euthanasia it is that lot.

Regards
and Merry Xmas team

 

[smilingassassin]

In 40,000 years this place will look like...

In 40,000 years this place will look like MARS and be inhabited by the same number of living critters. F... ALL.

 

[Milkman]

Originally posted by Pessimistic

eg the egyptians actually biult the pyramids but our soceity can't even work out why they did.

Or how they did, for that matter.

 

[evade28]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Err... not quite. The population of aborigines was small - about a million, or, in other words, one individual per every nine or ten square kilometres (obviously the actual population density was higher in more fertile areas, but you get my point). Therefore, the effect on the environment by the aborigines was quite small, but only because their population was itself small. Agriculture, like in other parts of the world, would have allowed the aborigines to live a sedentary rather than nomadic lifestyle, which in turn would have allowed a larger population.

well considering how big australia is, we only have 20 times the amount of ppl they did, and i think we've done way more than 20 times the damage they did.