Society & Culture Do you do Australia day?

[Impunity!]

Not sure if you are having us all on with your pearl of wisdom. Read this book (I and many others see it as the best ever made on the subject of how different groups of people advanced) and then you are welcome to contribute to a discussion on Australian aboriginies. The authour goes into great detail about them. And no, sorry to disappoint you, he doesn't criticise them for being backwards or as you so eloquently put it, in the "Stone Age."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Until then, unless you're pulling our leg in which case you're about as funny as a car accident, keep those baseless opinions to yourself.

"Aborigines"

Not having read the book, can you give me a précis of why the indigenous Australians were still living in Stone Age society when the English turned up in 1788?

 

[Impunity!]

Tell me some animals and plants you could farm in 'Stone Age' Australia.

Based in the 225 years since, most of them.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Such as?

 

[Caesar]

I'm very interested in debating the issue rationally and am doing so. I'm not attacking the source, simply pointing out that what is so easily dismissed as "tokenism" by you and others would mean a hell of a lot to people that were adversely affected by what occurred to them due to British colonialism. And this makes sense. I mean, logically speaking, why would someone who was not affected by colonialism adveserley - or at least feel a deep empathy for those who were from spending time discussing and/or trying to understand their perspective and why they feel the way they do - understand the important symbolism of such a change and how it can help (initially) segments of a nation move beyond a brutal past?

You realise that plenty of indigenous people celebrate Australia Day, and many more agree with the position that it is mindless tokenism? It's really quite insulting to think that you can change the day and pretend that you have done something meaningful.

It is your opinion, even though you haven't experienced horrors directly or generationally, that a change would actually be more harmful than beneficial - alarmism at its finest right there .

It's a logical conclusion, actually. The Tent Embassy in Canberra has long used Invasion Day protests as a means to bring attention to aboriginal issues. It would lose much of its impact if not for the surrounding context of Australia Day. Australia Day isn't just a celebration - it's a commemoration, and a reminder. Don't forget - this country is a colonial construct.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

"Aborigines"

Not having read the book, can you give me a précis of why the indigenous Australians were still living in Stone Age society when the English turned up in 1788?

You have eyes, read it yourself. You might just learn something and expand that mind of yours.

 

[Caesar]

You have eyes, read it yourself. You might just learn something and expand that mind of yours.

Many of Diamond's arguments in that book have been widely condemned as specious by numerous eminent historians and anthropologists.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Many of Diamond's arguments in that book have been widely condemned as specious by numerous eminent historians and anthropologists.

Doesn't make his arguments wrong though does it? You're being overly dramatic with the term "many" as well. Every book will have some critics: especially one that has the conservatives re-examine their nice, organised view of how the world got to be the way it is. He does a great job of refuting criticisms himself without me doing it for him. Of course there will be those that disagree with him but I have studied at two vastly different universities (on more new-age, one old and traditional) in two different countries and both professors were strongly of the opinion that it was an amazing piece of non-fiction work in this field. I agree with what they said. A Pullitzer prize, an Aventis prize and having the book turned into an excellent documentary by National Geographic also show that it is a pretty important piece of work.

You should read it if you haven't already.

 

[Caesar]

I have read it and it is a shameless piece of Eurocentrism.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

You realise that plenty of indigenous people celebrate Australia Day, and many more agree with the position that it is mindless tokenism? It's really quite insulting to think that you can change the day and pretend that you have done something meaningful.

Well there are exceptions to every rule so yes, of course there must be some indigenous Australians that share that view. But surely you must concede that they are in the minority. If you know of others, I'd be really interested to hear of them.

It's a logical conclusion, actually. The Tent Embassy in Canberra has long used Invasion Day protests as a means to bring attention to aboriginal issues. It would lose much of its impact if not for the surrounding context of Australia Day. Australia Day isn't just a celebration - it's a commemoration, and a reminder. Don't forget - this country is a colonial construct.

Hang on a minute. With a straight face, you are putting forward that, if given the choice, those in charge of the tent embassy would prefer that the country celebrate Australia Day/invasion day instead of observing it as a day of reflection/shame just because having the day as it is now gives their protest more exposure and impact? That's cynical in the extreme. You can't be serious.

 

[Caesar]

I am saying that the current situation draws the most attention to aboriginal issues.

The problem with changing symbols is that it allows people to forget about what those symbols represented. Once you get a token change, all these slacktivists like AA suddenly forget about the actual issue.

 

[vealesy]

Well THEN what else will they whinge about rite?

 

[NarklesHelmet]

I have read it and it is a shameless piece of Eurocentrism.

That also happenes to be the first category of criticism levelled at it on the wiki page. My turn to be a cynic now...

That line "that the book is eurocentric" has always baffled me and it seemed to baffle him too. I found that most of the book focused on those people and groups outside of Europe. His comparing of Europe to elsewhere is quite brilliant and done in a way that flies in the face of a lot of the old, colonial euro-centric rubbish that was forced on people for so long.

 

[Caesar]

It's the main criticism of the book so I'm hardly surprised its on the Wiki page. When he runs out of geographical factors to effectively explain the difference between Europe and Asia he resorts to the same old Eurocentric arguments about cultural superiority, Asian predisposition to despotism, etc. to explain why Europe became the global powerhouse and not China.

It's really one of the most overrated books of the last couple of decades.

Step 1: Resurrect 100 year old debunked theory of environmental determinism
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit!

 

[NarklesHelmet]

It's the main criticism of the book so I'm hardly surprised its on the Wiki page. When he runs out of geographical factors to effectively explain the difference between Europe and Asia he resorts to the same old Eurocentric arguments about cultural superiority, Asian predisposition to despotism, etc. to explain why Europe became the global powerhouse and not China.

It's really one of the most overrated books of the last couple of decades.

Step 1: Resurrect 100 year old debunked theory of environmental determinism
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit!

Ha ha, now I'm convinced you haven't read it! That is so far wide of the mark it is not funny, very wide of the mark. It seems you simply read the criticsm on wiki and wrapped it up as your own. He actually destroys the sacred cows you speak of, not focuses on "same old eurocentric arguments" You probably should of read the small pre-amble before the criticism on wiki which is spot-on: "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation." The undue weight part is pretty spot-on.

There is nowhere near the amount of criticism of the book than it is made to look like here on the wiki page. A few in the field, as expected, point out some differences in opinion. But even critics of the book tend to concede that it was such an ambitious undertaking that there would be the odd gap here or there. You're pretty unequivocal though, strangely so - in a doth protest too much kind of way.

I suggest with your withering and dismissive criticisms of such a widely respected and studied book throughout universities of the world, you spend some time alerting all anthropology and political science departments (trust me, nearly all of them have this book as compulsory reading) of your criticisms as it sounds like a waste of time for so many bright young minds to bother with it.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

slacktivists like AA

Trying to spin your support for the status quo as some kind of compassionate consideration of Aboriginals.

 

[Caesar]

Ha ha, now I'm convinced you haven't read it! That is so far wide of the mark it is not funny, very wide of the mark.

It's really not. If I was at home right now I could point you to where it is, but it is a few hundred pages into the book where he has pretty firmly established his idea that Eurasia had environmental advantages over the rest of the world but is kind of left with the big problem of explaining why Europe succeeded and not China.

He starts wanking on about 'proximate factors' like the development of the merchant class, encouragement of free enterprise, beliefs in personal liberty and so forth. Then he uses some pretty specious topographical arguments to try and explain why they developed in Europe where as dose dem orientals were all despotic and stuff.

If you've studied the book then I would have thought you'd have critically analysed that section and noted that they're basically a shaky post-hoc justification for the same old eurocentric arguments that Europeans have been peddling for the last couple of hundred years.

 

[Impunity!]

You are a total slactivist though Jabba.

Make a difference - boycott KFC until they move to free range. Make a difference bro

 

[mantis]

I think this is an utterly bizarre perspective. You realise that the date is just a symbol right? It is only offensive because of what it represents. And what it represents is the foundation of the nation that we are. Face it. When you look at the history of our nation, the landing at Sydney Cove is objectively the single most significant historical event. It, more than anything else, led to us being the country we are today. Ultimately, that's why we started celebrating it in the first place.

Agitating to move Australia Day is based on this weird assumption that the day itself is intrinsically offensive. It's not. What's really offensive (if anything) is that we are a nation for whom that date is the most important historical occurrence. And pretending it isn't by moving the celebration to some other random day isn't going to change that.


Well, it is and it isn't. Britain in many cases did equally horrible things to other countries during colonial times. But the fact that the British pretty much uniformly left its former colonies in a better state than most other colonial powers after withdrawing is a pretty massive difference. I'm not suggesting that they did it for wholly (or even particularly) altruistic reasons, but nonetheless that's the result.

In a perfect world nobody would have colonised anywhere. But I am pretty glad I live in a country where the colonisers had the forethought to set up largely stable and sustainable legal, economic, political and administrative systems, and then left the country to govern itself without the need for a bloody and expensive war of independence. If they hadn't, we might be Argentina.

To the detriment of the original people of this land, but who cares right, as long as you have a nice job & a house, doesn't matter that the Pommy invasion impacted greatly on the Aboriginals.

 

[Impunity!]

You've missed the point as usual mantis. Keep ploughing that furrow old gal

 

[NarklesHelmet]

It's really not. If I was at home right now I could point you to where it is, but it is a few hundred pages into the book where he has pretty firmly established his idea that Eurasia had environmental advantages over the rest of the world but is kind of left with the big problem of explaining why Europe succeeded and not China.

He starts wanking on about 'proximate factors' like the development of the merchant class, encouragement of free enterprise, beliefs in personal liberty and so forth. Then he uses some pretty specious topographical arguments to try and explain why they developed in Europe where as dose dem orientals were all despotic and stuff.

If you've studied the book then I would have thought you'd have critically analysed that section and noted that they're basically a shaky post-hoc justification for the same old eurocentric arguments that Europeans have been peddling for the last couple of hundred years.

Yeah nah ,well we'll just have to beg to differ on this. Fair enough that you have your opinion on what he said and why you don't agree with it. I just don't think disagreeing with him on one point (not saying it is just one) is worth dismissing his whole book: especially one so expansive. One point doesn't make the book.

 

[Atch]

hell to the mutha phukkin yeah, im 18, just finished school, got loose the last 2 days and plan on getting loose straya day! Straya day!

 

[Goat 53]

"Aborigines"

Not having read the book, can you give me a précis of why the indigenous Australians were still living in Stone Age society when the English turned up in 1788?

40000 years: invented a stick! Herpderp..

Indigenous Australians didn't need to develop beyond the 'stone age', they'd tamed their environment and were prosperous from a breeding perspective, there was abundant food for them in regards to the way they lived, agriculture wasn't needed. There was no upward pressure for them to develop technology to survive. How's that for an answer?

Anyway people, happy Victory Day. It's basically what we're celebrating. Invading another country and still being here 200+ years later: hence we defeated the original inhabitants with greater weaponry.

 

[ousitgarn]

Thought I might contribute a bit to the debate between Caesar and NarklesHelmet.

Every culture has its problems, violent past etc. None of this should be forgotten - but the idea that in the remembrance of past crimes there should always be an accompanying guilt does not increase the validity of the remembrance. As an example; 'I as a white Australian male, feel personal responsibility and guilt - which leads me to declare that the entire foundation of my existence is false and deserving of abolition, simply as a consequence of my being so, even though my being so was determined entirely by historical circumstances over which I had no control, the chance of my birth etc.' This position is untenable, because the past cannot be changed and it suggests no notion of an alternative for the future.

I would like to think that, although far from perfect, education regarding colonial crimes is improving to the point where only certified racists actually deny that any crime happened at all. At the same time, if you look at the means used to critique colonialism, it also has European origins - note - origins. The criticism of colonialism was developed using the theoretical arsenal which stems from great left wing European traditions, the point is that it is universal in its scope. The fact that this theory originated from European traditions does not mean that European colonialism is now absolved of its crimes, nor does it mean that the progressive ideas which are critical of colonialism and its impact should be attributed to some racial or national character which is strictly European.

If you look at Aboriginal culture it is the same, there is good and bad. Take a few aspects of the structure of social relations prior to colonisation (I cannot possibly describe this in sufficient detail here). Tribes fighting for territory (war), no age equality (elders etc.), strict gender roles. Now you might say that this does not justify colonialism (if the justification were to be that through invasion the British sought to abolish such structures - which they obviously did not), and you'd be right, but it also does not follow that everything the colonisers did - including what it lead to today - is to be denounced. Rather, it means that under the current circumstances, in a (post)colonial society, using theories that had their origins in Europe, we can fight for a better Australia for all people who live on this soil.

Aboriginal culture is rich and varied, but it did not give rise - on its own - to a great left wing tradition which is capable of presenting arguments against racial and other oppression within the context of the current stage of Australian society. This does not stop Aboriginal culture from incorporating such traditions into its own - precisely because the specific origin of such traditions is a matter of historical accident. Take the battle for land rights as an example, this would not have been possible without the theoretical arsenal of said European traditions, yes the battle for land rights would not have been necessary had the British not arrived, but they did - so we have to play the hand we're dealt.

My conclusion from all this is that any notion of personal guilt which leads to a broad denunciation of colonial traditions, with no alternative ideas of substance, suggested abdication from participation in various institutions and traditions which have their origins in colonialism, is what could be termed 'romantic reaction' - an appeal to a return to a past that is no longer attainable. I don't particularly care for the fanfare and pomp of Australia day, the fireworks, the flag wearing, the drinking etc. Then again, I don't care for those things generally. I think those aspects of Australia day are more symptomatic of developments within Australian society as a whole and are not strictly limited to Australia day. If you want to confront these issues, telling people they are bogan racists for celebrating Australia day and posturing as morally superior because you still feel bad about colonisation isn't going to improve our country one iota.

 

[Outshined]

Australia day brings out the worst in people from both sides. The overt, in your face 'straya campaigner patriotism is cringeworthy, but equally annoying is the incessant stream of anti Australian, anti Anglo-Saxon sentiment that seems to arise.

Have a BBQ, watch the cricket, listen to JJJ, paint your face, do whatever floats your boat, but just remember that the best part of Australia day is often the time spent with close friends, good food and a generous amount of alcohol, appreciating the charmed existence most of us lead compared to the rest of the world. Ascribing the day any more meaning on either end of the spectrum is a pointless exercise.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

My parents ****ed here. It starts and ends there.