Political correctness and cancel culture

[onetrack]

The Aboriginals of today are far better off than their ancestors were. They have access to a good health system that is designed to improve their health, that they have mostly damaged by excessive alcohol and drug consumption.

 

They have been on the receiving end of endless amounts of money, "special funding" for Aboriginal projects, housing, getting extra money just for making sure their kids go to school, and formal compensation by way of back pay, Aboriginal land title and land rights, which now makes them the biggest freehold landowners in Australia, per head of population.

 

In W.A. alone, the Aboriginal groups now own 10% of the freehold land in W.A., yet they make up less than 3% of the population. The Noongar-Boodja Land Trust settlement agreement gives a total of $1.3B to just 30,000 W.A. Aboriginals and their future offspring, as well as control over 320,000 Ha of "development and cultural" land in SW W.A. Seven new Aboriginal corporations have been formed to run all this, with all seven corporations fully funded by the W.A. Govt for 12 years.

 

I'd certainly like a fully-funded large corporation formed just for my Anglo-Saxon family group, and be handed a huge parcel of land for free - but as a white person, I have SFA chance of that happening! I've had to work hard for, and buy, every parcel of freehold land I've ever owned! (none of which constitutes a great number, a great area, or great value of land).

[willedoo]

My mathematics ability is not too good, but this is the way I calculate it. They own 10% of the land. Their ancestors owned 100% of the land. To be better off than their ancestors, they would need to own at least 101% of the land now. It's like having $100 taken from you and being given back $10 and told you're better off.

 

As far as better access to health services, most of their current health problems weren't experienced by their ancestors before European contact. Some could argue that their ancestors were better off in that regard. Same logic with money. They only need it to survive in the post contact environment as their ancestors didn't have any use for it. They had everything they needed to live relatively content and healthy lives.

 

For sure, they didn't do too well in extended drought periods and people live a more comfortable and varied life these days, by our standards. No cold and wet nights in a leaky gunya. Another point there is that their ancestors had no knowledge or concept of modern comfort so wouldn't have missed it. In my opinion they were a lot better off before Europeans came here. I'm basing that on how the ancestors would have lived and thought without outside contact. It's a bit like comparing apples with oranges.

Edited April 17, 2021 by willedoo

[onetrack]

Willedo - the bottom line, is - would any of todays Aboriginals prefer to go back to their pre-Colonisation methods and style of living? I seriously doubt it. Many of them still enjoy hunting "bush tucker" - but they do with Toyotas, firearms designed and provided by Whites, and the use of roads installed by the Whites.

Anything of value provided to them by whites is never appreciated, it's alway "wrong" for their culture, and their destructive ability is legendary. I have never seen an Aboriginal settlement where the housing is kept in good repair, as in white-populated suburbs. Their new housing is always rapidly degraded with destruction of walls, windows, fittings, and infrastructure, and daubed with grafitti. If not degraded, it's abandoned, as they decide they need to live somewhere else.

[willedoo]

23 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Willedo - the bottom line, is - would any of todays Aboriginals prefer to go back to their pre-Colonisation methods and style of living?

Probably not many, but that still doesn't mean they are better off than their ancestors. Their ancestors never knew the modern lifestyle and the modern people have never known the lifestyle of their ancestors. As I said, comparing apples to oranges. Only a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if their ancestors were happier and probably a lot healthier.

[facthunter]

One track you are measuring them by OUR standards. Individual wealth accumulation is not part of their concepts. As for destruction ?? THEY did none in 60,000 years. Look what DAMAGE we have done to the environment on a bit over 250 years. They didn't kill trees they'd take some bark or a branch from it. WE just bulldoze the lot over and burn it. Nev

[Yenn]

How do we know the aboriginals did no harm before we came here?

We are witnessing a load of harm being done by whites who profess to be following aborigals ways. Namely the National parks do gooders.

[willedoo]

I've read some theories that land burning changed Australia from a more lush vegetation to the dry eucalyptus we have now. Whether that's right or wrong, it's above my pay grade.

[facthunter]

Some research  does suggest this may be the case. The way eucalyptus trees propagate  tends to eliminate competition. However you could probably drink safely from any river and the population lived in equilibrium with the animals and the environment for longer than any other inhabitants of the Planet. It's clear that they were conscious of how the Land sustains them and other creatures. and they respected it. WE generally, DON'T. That's quite obvious. in the past and continuing now at an even more rapid rate. Nev

[old man emu]

The change in predominant vegetation from "rainforest" to eucalyptus domination doesn't seem to be ties to human activity.

 

Scientists from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and Australian universities are piecing together a picture of the prehistoric Australian climate dating back 200-300 thousand years. During ice ages, which occur around every 100 000 years, continents become drier. However the research team found evidence that the last three thaws between ice ages in Australia have been progressively drier. The team discovered that, unlike most continents, Australia's long-term climate is governed predominantly by rainfall, not temperature, probably since temperature fluctuations are absorbed by Australia's surrounding oceans. ( https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1998/11/10/14284.htm )

 

The difference between European's method of burning and First People's method of burning is that the European method creates very hot, destructive, uncontrolled fires, while the First People's does the opposite. This means that in a large forest area, only pockets were burnt by the First People, so that the  burnt area recovered, providing fodder for kangaroos and thereby drawing the First People's prey into a small area making hunting easier. These small, cool fires didn't damage the forests like the uncontrolled bushfires we know. Of course, with the cycle of the El Nino weather pattern there would have been years of drought leading to massive bushfires. ( https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/land/aboriginal-fire-management )

 

Another vegetation changing activity of the First People that has been ignored is that they apparently were involved in agriculture if the reports of early explorers are correct. 

 

Historical accounts, oral traditions and ethnographic observations reveal that at the time of the British colonisation of Australia at least 19 different species of plant were being cultivated by at least 21 different identifiable indigenous groups. These included species of yam, sweet potato and its relatives (such as the “bush potato”), “native millet”, ngardu, “bush tomatoes” and “bush onions”. But some of these species weren’t just planted; in some instances they were the principal source of sustenance.

 

When explorer George Grey first entered the Victoria District of the central west coast of Western Australia in 1839, he noted yam fields of square kilometres in extent. One tract “extended east and west as far as we could see”. Further south he recorded that “the whole of this valley is an extensive warran [yam] ground”.

 

( http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-july-august-2010/evidence-indigenous-australian-agriculture.html#:~:text=The assumption that indigenous Australians,cases lived in large villages. ) 

[Yenn]

Funny that George Grey noticed fields of square kilometers in extent. I hadn't realised that they were metricated in those days. I would have expected the usual measurement of land area to be used, that is acres.

Could some editing have been done or was that the actual words used in his journal?

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, Yenn said:

Could some editing have been done or was that the actual words used in his journal?

No doubt a conversion of units so that modern readers could comprehend the extent of the fields. 

 

I wondered at that value, either in acres of sq kms. It just seems like too much production for what must have only been a smallish population. Just think how much food you could grow in a quarter acre house block. With vast areas under cultivation, there had to be a huge transport system to enable the growers to trade off the surplus.

[onetrack]

The original George Grey description of the yam fields of the Victoria District of W.A. was "several square miles in extent".

 

One must also take into account that there are 1100 known shipwrecks along the West Australian coast, dating from the 1500's to the 1900's. It is suspected that there were numerous survivors from these shipwrecks, as evidenced by blonde hair amongst some of the Victoria District Aboriginal tribes, and occasional European features such as lighter skin appearing amongst a few of these people.

 

If there were European survivors of these shipwrecks who were accepted and mingled and co-habitated with the Aboriginals, it is likely that European habits such as constructing buildings and cultivating ground for food, could have easily been introduced to these tribespeople.

 

https://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/Nhanda_Villages_of_the_Victoria_District_WA.pdf

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by onetrack

[Old Koreelah]

9 hours ago, onetrack said:

The original George Grey description of the yam fields of the Victoria District of W.A. was "several square miles in extent".

 

One must also take into account that there are 1100 known shipwrecks along the West Australian coast, dating from the 1500's to the 1900's. It is suspected that there were numerous survivors from these shipwrecks, as evidenced by blonde hair amongst some of the Victoria District Aboriginal tribes, and occasional European features such as lighter skin appearing amongst a few of these people.

 

If there were European survivors of these shipwrecks who were accepted and mingled and co-habitated with the Aboriginals, it is likely that European habits such as constructing buildings and cultivating ground for food, could have easily been introduced to these tribespeople.

 

https://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/Nhanda_Villages_of_the_Victoria_District_WA.pdf

 

OT I’ve been impressed by and agreed with most of your post on this forum, but this line of thinking is verging on offensive; are you suggesting that without the aid of whiter fellas, our first people couldn’t have created the many impressive advances seen by early settlers? 

Some of their stone villages, drainage structures and eel traps have been dated to long before those shipwrecks.

[old man emu]

Don't forget the saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention". If you have a civilisation that has created all the tools it deems necessary for a satisfying life, then invention of new physical things is not really necessary. I have previously (long time ago) mentioned Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which can be depicted this way:

We can observe the Needs in a civilisation from physical things and behaviours, and it is quite clear that the First People exhibited satisfaction with those. The difference between the First People and the rest of the "advanced" civilisations was that the First People were satisfied with theirs. We can assume that the First Peoples civilisation was the product of a development period over tens of thousands of years. What we don't know was if it is a post apocalyptic product.

 

Another area that we don't have access to is the depth of their philosophies. We are not knowledgeable of "Secret Men's Business" nor "Secret Women's Business". If you compare that to Freemasonry you will find that whilst there is no degree in Freemasonry higher than that of Master Mason, there are additional degrees that are offered only to those who are Master Masons. 

[pmccarthy]

5 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

OT I’ve been impressed by and agreed with most of your post on this forum, but this line of thinking is verging on offensive; are you suggesting that without the aid of whiter fellas, our first people couldn’t have created the many impressive advances seen by early settlers? 

Some of their stone villages, drainage structures and eel traps have been dated to long before those shipwrecks.

I have a book on my shelf “And there ghosts may be heard” which was written about 20 years ago and deals with the possible impact of the shipwrecks on aboriginal activities and language. The extensive yam fields are mentioned, but they seem to me to be identical to those in parts of PNG. Similarly the dress depicted in the Bradshaw  figures is pretty much identical with PNG native dress pre the white invasion.

[Yenn]

It is only in the last year or so that there seems to be any mention of early explorers seeing aboriginal agriculture. Having read one or two early explorers journals and see no mention of agriculture I would like someone to point out which explorers saw the agriculture and where it was written down.

The earlier mention of square kiometers and its acceptance as being a conversion begs the question. Is the agriculture also a conversion?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

where it was written down.

 

17 hours ago, onetrack said:

https://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/Nhanda_Villages_of_the_Victoria_District_WA.pdf

Pages 1 to 3.

[Old Koreelah]

5 hours ago, Yenn said:

It is only in the last year or so that there seems to be any mention of early explorers seeing aboriginal agriculture. Having read one or two early explorers journals and see no mention of agriculture I would like someone to point out which explorers saw the agriculture and where it was written down...

This bloke found several:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Emu_(book)
 

https://www.booktopia.com.au/dark-emu-bruce-pascoe/book/9781921248016.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwse-DBhC7ARIsAI8YcWIqbb6UZKOEA2AYTy0b0MVU4ekML5GhIlVMUjold7_InfZpGU3zUnwaAqoREALw_wcB

[nomadpete]

Related to 'Political correctness',

 

Did anybody else notice Scotty from marketing on TV tonight?

He's got new glasses, looking rather Daniel andrews.... And one noddy behind him is wearing a akubra (not real, no sweat stains) perhaps implying a connection with the mythical 'man-on-the-land' and the other noddy behind him perhaps representing the intellectual voter?

 

To me, it looked rather choreographed.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

it looked rather choreographed.

Never!!!!!! What Honest John polly would fake something in a video grab?

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Related to 'Political correctness',

 

Did anybody else notice Scotty from marketing on TV tonight?

He's got new glasses, looking rather Daniel andrews.... And one noddy behind him is wearing a akubra (not real, no sweat stains) perhaps implying a connection with the mythical 'man-on-the-land' and the other noddy behind him perhaps representing the intellectual voter?

 

To me, it looked rather choreographed.

I often laugh when I see pollies out in country areas.  The BS handbook must say something like:  "When dealing with anyone from a rural area:  dress code is brand new pale Moleskins, brand new long sleeve shirt in check (blue), brand new Akubra, brand new highly polished RM Williams boots".

[old man emu]

BS Handbook Item 2

Workplace visits dress code: Brand new Hi-Viz vest; brand new safety helmet; brand new safety glasses.

 

You'd think that like the rest of us, pollies would have their own issue of the above. But I suppose that it doesn't look good to the punters if your Hi-Viz vest is gravy-stained from having your snout in the trough.

[onetrack]

You can't really point the finger at pollies for the "snout in the trough" mentality. Just been having a discussion with a mate who spent a lot of time on remote mining sites, and he said a lot of FIFO employees took advantage of the "intense safety culture" of these sites and the companies.

 

In essence, as an employee of these big companies, you can ask for - and receive in spades - any safety equipment you need to carry out your job. It's a policy of these companies that safety equipment is not to be scrimped on.

So the employees ask for and get, new clothing, new hi-vis equipment, new safety gear (glasses, muffs, gloves, etc) every time they arrive for a shift. But they don't really need them, the last lot they got is still very serviceable.

So they pack away their newly-issued safety equipment and clothing in their bag, and take it home and sell it. Now, a lot of these people are on $150K to $180K a year, so it's not like they're exactly starving. It's just the "use-up" mentality.

 

The Military don't hand out new equipment to you unless you can provide an old, worn-out item in exchange, to try and ensure the new article scamming is restricted to the minimum.

In Vietnam, we could exchange a set of new Aussie GP boots with the Yanks, for some other article, way above their actual value, such was the intense desire of the Yanks to acquire the "superior design" Aussie GP boots.

[facthunter]

Scotty from Marketing is ALL about the image and the big SELL. ALL this stuff HE struts in front of you is set up with great care (and cost you pay) to sell him to the People as whatever image HE thinks will do him the most good at the next election.  In all this over exposure he's also let slip what he's really like and a lot don't like what THAT is. Someone should whisper to him that women got the right to vote a while ago.  I'm interested to see what effect the realisation of the fact things are NOT guaranteed  for them will act on their cohesion under pressure.  He's got a glass Jaw. Can't cop what he dishes out freely to others. Nev

[Yenn]

I think Scotty is stupid, but is he stupid enough to try to look like Daniel Andrews? No even he is not that stupid.

I did notice the new first and second nodder behind Scumbag and wondered what they were. The one in the hat looked as if he was security, eyes going all over the place.

A couple of things that I think are grossly overdone by the media are the Nodders behind every pollie on TV. and the obligatory in car interview which never seems to be relevant. That of course is forgetting the person receiving a Covid jab and the thosands of little bottles on a conveyor.

When I got my first jab I complained to the doctor that they hadn't got the TV camera for the occasion. I must be the only person not to have appeared on TV.