To Australians of Aboriginal heritage who may read this...

[shanemac]

Not Sorry.


(For my apology, please read my signature below).

[John Abney-Hastings]

I'm sorry we didn't finish them off when we had the chance.

[Sliverfern]

I could not agree more :rofl: :rofl:

[IlluSionS667]

I don't get it... The British first gained control over the country and then turned it into a prison colony. As the colony developed itself, the natives were ethnically cleansed or used as cheap labor.

I don't care whether or not Aboriginals are inferior creatures. Any man who sees no problem with the above chain of events has some serious morallity issues. I wonder if they are equally emotionless with regards to the abuse of animals....

I'm not a supporter of multi-culturalism, though. I just don't appreciate this utter lack of respect for life, whether its superior human life, inferior human life or non-human life....

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't get it... The British first gained control over the country and then turned it into a prison colony. As the colony developed itself, the natives were ethnically cleansed or used as cheap labor.Its really very simple. It has its roots in English hypocrisy, and in that they really are world leaders. These are the people who can bomb civilians on a vast scale whilst simultaneously moralising to the world about "decency" and "fair play". Behind that facade is the criminal spirit of rapine and plunder.

[Basil Fawlty]

@shanemac - you should be ashamed of yourself, calling yourself an Irishman whilst expressing such sentiments. What has been done to the aboriginals of Australia is little different to what was done here in times past.

[Sliverfern]

So you would be outraged by this?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/ben_hall/Sorry.jpg

What a classic :) :dance2:

[shanemac]

@shanemac - you should be ashamed of yourself, calling yourself an Irishman whilst expressing such sentiments. What has been done to the aboriginals of Australia is little different to what was done here in times past.

Yes, but these kinds of things are never really as simple as left-wing historians would have us believe.

The truth is that the abos are a primitive race of proto-human, probably of a similar level of evolution as Neanderthal man. So when white man arrived in Australia and started building an advanced civilisation, the abo was unable to adapt successfully to that new civilisation. The Brits didn’t have an expressed policy of extermination of the aboriginal population… the abos just did not adapt to the changes that were taking place around them, and did not fight back in an organised way against the white invaders.

Aborigines were pretty much treated equally under the law from earliest times. OK, so they weren’t allowed to vote and weren’t counted in the census… but there was no slavery or anything like that, and the full weight of the law (ie hanging) was brought down on any white who killed an abo. Not saying that bad shit didn’t go down, but by and large these were isolated incidents, and not part of any government policy.

Anyway, back to the apology. … The apology was specifically for a government policy of removing ½ white children from aboriginal communities and placing them within mainstream (white) society… a policy that existed up until the early 1960s or so (I think it finished then anyway). Here’s the background…

It was generally believed that the aborigines would never be able to cope with advanced civilisation because they were too primitive. This conclusion was reached after more than a century of experience with the abos, and was pretty much right. So, it was felt that the best thing for the abos would be to leave them in their own communities, and let them live their traditional lifestyles of hunting, fishing, and looking for yams, witchetty grubs and shit like that or to get simple jobs like working on cattle stations for a very meagre amount of money.

But it was felt that the ½ white kids had the potential to integrate into civilisation, and make a better life for themselves. It was thought that these ½ castes would probably have ¼ caste offspring, and that after a few generations, they would be indistinguishable from humans… I mean from whites (whew!).

Anyway, in order for them to make it in civilisation it was seen that they’d have to be removed from their aboriginal communities (as the aboriginal communities in those days were no more than a few humpies or lean-tos, where the abos sheltered… no electricity, no schools, no nothing). So they were taken away, and sent to either adopted white foster homes, or to a kind of boarding school where they were given formal education and training.

This whole scheme was progressing nicely until the 60s came along and it became illegal to admit that there are any significant differences between the races of humans. Suddenly it was white Australia’s fault that the Abos had never developed a system of writing, monetary exchange, plumbing, building standards, medicine or anything else that constitutes a civilisation. So the policy of removing ½ caste children was stopped, and the abos were given all kinds of programs and free money so that they could sit out there under a tree in the Northern Territory and not bother with work. Of course, when people have no work to do, they do not have a sense of pride in themselves, and the state of the Aboriginal people went from bad to Mad Max III (Thunderdome). But they had all that money and free housing, so they used the money to fight boredom and depression by getting drunk and/or high every day, and became a race of alcoholics…alcoholic Neandertals.

However, some of the ½ whites who had been taken away all those years before were progressing through the ranks of academia (helped of course by a very aggressive policy of affirmative action), and found favour and traction with white academia and the left-wing movement by blaming everything that was wrong with Aboriginal communities on whitey. Whatever was wrong in aboriginal Australia, white man was to blame…

These beneficiaries of the policy of removal then started to look at their own situation as another stick with which to beat the big bad white man. White man is evil, so if it was a white policy it must have been bad was the logic. So there was a report commissioned into the effects of the policy of removal of ½ caste children from aboriginal communities, and of course the report found that it was a horrible, evil policy, enacted by white man to destroy Aboriginal families, and sell their children into slavery, etc. While that was to a certain extent true, it is only a very narrow view of the overall scheme.

Anyway, the removed ½ caste children became known as “the stolen generation”, and we are now forever hearing their sob stories of how they never knew their families etc etc. None of this is ever put in its proper context because it is now illegal to see any difference between this…
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/abos.jpg

and this…


http://www.engineforall.com/archivio/2007/05/16-zf-recruits-250-engineers/ZF-Engineers.jpg


Aboriginal children are no longer removed from their communities. Instead they are left in those communities which exist out in the middle of nowhere and whose people have absolutely no reason to get up out of bed each morning other than to go down to the bottle shop to spend all of their free money on alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. Nobody ever seems to make it out of those communities with a proper educational background to be able to make it in today's civilisation. I wonder why.

It is for these reasons that I reiterate that I am not sorry for the policy of removing 1/2 white children from their aboriginal communities. Rather, I would like to see a bit more gratitude from the small number of those now grown up children who made it into the highest levels of Government and the Legal system, and from there denounce white Australia as evil and demand that we spend the next 200 years saying "sorry".

[shanemac]

Now, if anyone's still reading....

I do feel sorry for the Aborigines but not to them. I feel sad that they have not been able to cope with civilisation. I feel sad when I see how low they have sunk into misery, despair and alcoholism because the policy of free handouts has destroyed their sense of self-worth. I even feel sorry for them when I hear of how they vandalise and destroy the towns they live in and attack and kill or maim innocent whites for absolutely no reason other than boredom, resentment and jealousy.

But that is not the same as feeling individually sorry because of a personal responsibility for their plight.

If this apology helps the Aborigines to stop being so resentful of whites, then I'll support it. Stopping the resentment may help the abos to address the problems of their own making, and forge a better future for them. These problems look pretty intractible right now, but anything's gotta be better than where they're at now.

The future of the aborigines really is a very complex and difficult issue. The root of the problems are biological, but we're never going to hear that spoken about. I fear we're just gonna keep going round in circles because nobody will ever admit the truth about race.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes, but these kinds of things are never really as simple as left-wing historians would have us believe.What have left wing historians to do with this?
The truth is that the abos are a primitive race of proto-human, probably of a similar level of evolution as Neanderthal man.This is a lie, nothing more. This is exactly what they said about the Irish in the 19th century and you should be ashamed of yourself for parroting this colonialist crap now.

The same stuff you are spouting began here from day one of the coloinial enterprise in Ireland with Giraldus Cambrensis, Norman propagandist:They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to leisure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihood for animals and they live like animalsLike you he also appeals to the whizz-bang world of technology as a mark of superiority and like you he intitiates the rhetoric of dehumanisation which accompaines every attempt to destroy a people.
"This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. They indulge in incest, for example in marrying - or rather debauching - the wives of their dead brothers. . . . This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. Of all peoples it is the least instructed in the rudiments of the faith. They do not yet pay tithes or first fruits or contract marriages. They do not avoid incest.and so on.
Later on during the Elizabethan period we find someone like Edmund Tremayne secretary to Sidney, telling lies about the Irish, repeatig the Cambrenisian tropes once again:
"[they] commit whoredom, hold no wedlock, ravish, steal and commit all abomination without scruple of conscience."The routine accusation of cannibalism:
"The time hath been, when they lived like Barbarians, in woods, in bogs, and in desolate places, without politic law, or civil government, neither embracing religion, law or mutual love. That which is hateful to all the world besides is only beloved and embraced by the Irish, I mean civil wars and domestic dissensions .... the Cannibals, devourers of men's flesh, do learn to be fierce amongst themselves, but the Irish, without all respect, are even more cruel to their neighbors."
In the 19th centruy the Irish and the African are interchangeable in the fevered imagination of the colonial exploiter, a verse from Punch magazine:
"Six-foot Paddy, are you no bigger –
You whom cozening friars dish –
Mentally, than the poorest nigger
Grovelling before fetish?
You to Sambo I compare
Under superstition's rule
Prostrate like an abject fool."The histirian Charles Kingsley is your predecessor for he reduces them to the animal kingdom in much the same way as you decsribe the aboriginals:
"I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours."Punch magazine again:
"A gulf certainly, does appear to yawn between the Gorilla and the Negro. The woods and wilds of Africa do not exhibit an example of any intermediate animal. But in this, as in many other cases, philosophers go vainly searching abroad for that which they could readily find if they sought for it at home. A creature manifestly between the Gorilla and the Negro is to be met with in some of the lowest districts of London and Liverpool by adventurous explorers. It comes from Ireland, whence it has contrived to migrate; it belongs in fact to a tribe of Irish savages: the lowest species of Irish Yahoo. When conversing with its kind it talks a sort of gibberish. It is, moreover, a climbing animal, and may sometimes be seen ascending a ladder ladden with a hod of bricks."All too familiar from certain posters here concerning the "orcs".

And many more examples could be piled up and compared, past descriptions of the Irish compared with current depictions of blacks and so on, All very familiar and transparent stuff.

Of course its all too obvious to everyone except the perpetrators, who have to block their ears and silence their conscience why there is this dehumanisation process accomanying all criminal enterprises against other people's. Sartre explains it very well in the preface to Frantz Fanon's classic study of colonialism The Wretched of the Earth:
Our soldiers overseas, rejecting the universalism of the mother country, apply the ‘numerus clausus’ to the human race: since none may enslave, rob or kill his fellowman without committing a crime, they lay down the principle that the native is not one of our fellow-men. Our striking-power has been given the mission of changing this abstract certainty into reality: the order is given to reduce the inhabitants of the annexed country to the level of superior monkeys in order to justify the settler’s treatment of them as beasts of burden. Violence in the colonies does not only have for its aim the keeping of these enslaved men at arm’s length; it seeks to dehumanize them. Everything will be done to wipe out their traditions, to substitute our language for theirs and to destroy their culture without giving them ours. Sheer physical fatigue win stupefy them. Starved and ill, if they have any spirit left, fear will finish the job; guns are levelled at the peasant; civilians come to take over his land and force him by dint of flogging to till the land for them. If he shows fight, the soldiers fire and he’s a dead man; if he gives in, he degrades himself and he is no longer a man at all; shame and fear will split up his character and make his inmost self fall to pieces. The business is conducted with flying colours and by experts: the ‘psychological services’ weren’t established yesterday; nor was brain-washing. And yet, in spite of an these efforts, their ends are nowhere achieved: neither in the Congo, where Negroes’ hands were cut off, nor in Angola, where until very recently malcontents’ lips were pierced in order to shut them with padlocks.
This perfectly explains what was happening in Ireland under colonialism as it does the experience of the Aboriginal people of Australia, inculding the Stolen Generation phenomenon.

[shanemac]

Basil, I take your points, and the same points have been brought up by my own family or other Irish people when we discuss these types of things.

But, just because scientific arguments that the Irish are racially inferior were used against us in the past does not mean that all such scientific theories are untrue.

Most Irish are descended from groups of western European people who walked across to the British Isles when the ice melted after the last ice age.... we're talking 6,000 years ago. Then there were infusions of other groups on a continuous basis after that.

The Australian Aborigines by contrast arrived in Australia some 50,000 years ago (20,000 years before Cro-Magnon man had evolved in western Europe). They then had 50,000 years of splendid isolation (save for some very limited contact in Northern coastal regions with Melanesians and Indonesians). During that 50,000 years, man was the top predator in all Australian ecosystems, and thus had little evolutionary pressure to evolve a more powerful brain. The brain is the most energy expensive organ in the body (pound for pound), accounting for some 25% of average human energy expenditure, therefore there is significant evolutionary pressure to decrease brain size if extra brain power is not absolutely necessary for an animal's ability to survive.

Think about this for a minute before brushing it off. All human groups 50,000 years ago were at a fairly primitive level of development (H. sapiens had only evolved from H. erectus 70,000 - 100,000 years ago). Then after 50,000 years there hasn't been much selection pressure to evolve larger brains (and in fact there may have been pressure to evolve a smaller one). What conclusions can one draw from these facts?

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil, I take your points, and the same points have been brought up by my own family or other Irish people when we discuss these types of things.If my cousins down there heard you talking they would give you such a roasting. Both of them are also very close to aboriginals, they have worked closely with them on community projects and the like.
But, just because scientific arguments that the Irish are racially inferior were used against us in the past does not mean that all such scientific theories are untrue.These are not scientifc theories, they are pseudo-science.

[shanemac]

If my cousins down there heard you talking they would give you such a roasting. Both of them are also very close to aboriginals, they have worked closely with them on community projects and the like.


I'm sure they probably would. That's why nobody discusses these things in a rational manner... everyone's afraid of saying the wrong thing and upsetting the wrong people.


These are not scientifc theories, they are pseudo-science.

As a famous Australian politician once requested: "Please explain"

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm sure they probably would. That's why nobody discusses these things in a rational manner... everyone's afraid of saying the wrong thing and upsetting the wrong people.No, the reason why they would give you a tough time is because they actually know a lot about the aborginal world, have many friends amongst them, work with them and have a very strong sense of history and Irish identity. An important part of that is to never betray yourself by embracing the mentality of the coloniser. Perhaps I should send you to them for deprogramming. :p
Incidentally, both of them would be deeply critical of the kind of PC attitudes you allude to for reasons which might surprise you.
As a famous Australian politician once requested: "Pleaseexplain"Psedo-science is ideology masking itself behind an apparently scientific exterior.

[shanemac]

No, the reason why they would give you a tough time is because they actually know a lot about the aborginal world, have many friends amongst them, work with them and have a very strong sense of history and Irish identity. An important part of that is to never betray yourself by embracing the mentality of the coloniser. Perhaps I should send you to them for deprogramming. :p
Incidentally, both of them would be deeply critical of the kind of PC attitudes you allude to for reasons which might surprise you.


Hmmm... my interest in the aborigines has certainly been sparked over the past few months with all this talk of the apology... I'm gonna make more of an effort to find out more about them.

Psedo-science is ideology masking itself behind an apparently scientific exterior.

I know what the term "pseudo-science" means. I want you to tell me why you think the theories I posted above are pseudo-scientific.

[Basil Fawlty]

Hmmm... my interest in the aborigines has certainly been sparked over the past few months with all this talk of the apology... I'm gonna make more of an effort to find out more about them.Here's a little example. There are still aboriginals who retain the traditional knowledge, which is wide and extensive. They understand everything about the environment; flora and fauna, how to find water, predict the weather based on signs and so on. When White Fellas' go to the outback they go in SUV's with GPS, and all the latest gadgets and so on. But sometimes they have breakdowns or simply run out of fuel 500 miles from anywhere. Then they die.

Aboriginals can and do walk across the continent carrying nothing. Who would you rather be with in the middle of the Australian continent? They are masters in their own world but helpless and lost in our world, just as we are heavily dependent on technology when we venture into theirs. But if it breaks down, we die, but they don't. However, their "technology" is totally inadequate for our world and yet their world has been taken away from them, except for a minority who persevere to keep tradition alive. They are a shattered people.
I know what the term "pseudo-science" means. I want you to tell me why you think the theories I posted above are pseudo-scientific.If you can reference respectable scientific studies which contain those theories then we can proceed.

[IlluSionS667]

Its really very simple. It has its roots in English hypocrisy, and in that they really are world leaders. These are the people who can bomb civilians on a vast scale whilst simultaneously moralising to the world about "decency" and "fair play". Behind that facade is the criminal spirit of rapine and plunder.

Being Irish yourself, what would you identify as the cause of this repulsive supremacist attitude among Anglo-Saxons that is remarkably similar to Jewish supremacism?

[harjit]

This thread has become very very interesting.

Basil is really onto something here, and Shanemac too is to be praised for his thoughtful approach to the topic. Like him, I am also getting curious about Abos, something that was not the case so far.

Too bad I'm out of rep at the moment.

[Basil Fawlty]

Being Irish yourself, what would you identify as the cause of this repulsive supremacist attitude among Anglo-Saxons that is remarkably similar to Jewish supremacism?That's a loaded question.

[IlluSionS667]

That's a loaded question.

Maybe, but it's also one of the most relevant questions there are...

[Basil Fawlty]

Maybe, but it's also one of the most relevant questions there are...Its a loaded question as it assumes a set of premisses and a thesis. I could only answer it if already agreed with the thesis and the assumptions underlying it.

Here is you question - Being Irish yourself, what would you identify as the cause of this repulsive supremacist attitude among Anglo-Saxons that is remarkably similar to Jewish supremacism?
Why not ask about supremacist atitudes in general? Do you think that they are confined to the Jews and the Anglos? Are you implying that one (the Jewish kind) is the cause of the other (the English kind)? I could equally ask you about Beligian supremacism in the Congo and how it is "remarkably similar" to Jewish or Anglo supremacism.

[IlluSionS667]

Its a loaded question as it assumes a set of premisses and a thesis. I could only answer it if already agreed with the thesis and the assumptions underlying it.

Here is you question -
Why not ask about supremacist atitudes in general? Do you think that they are confined to the Jews and the Anglos? Are you implying that one (the Jewish kind) is the cause of the other (the English kind)? I could equally ask you about Beligian supremacism in the Congo and how it is "remarkably similar" to Jewish or Anglo supremacism.

Supremacism seems to be most obvious among British colonialists, however you correctly point out a very similar attitude within other colonial empires. The height of colonialism was also the age of the Industrial Revolution and Darwinism, the age of communism and Dickens, the age of Blavatsky and List, the age of cowboys and Indians. It is also known as the British century or the first Jewish century.

[Basil Fawlty]

Supremacism seems to be most obvious among British colonialists, however you correctly point out a very similar attitude within other colonial empires. The height of colonialism was also the age of the Industrial Revolution and Darwinism, the age of communism and Dickens, the age of Blavatsky and List, the age of cowboys and Indians. It is also known as the British century or the first Jewish century.So are you trying to suggest that Anglo-supremacy was caused by the Jews?

[IlluSionS667]

So are you trying to suggest that Anglo-supremacy was caused by the Jews?

I'm suggesting there's a possibility that Anglo-supremacy was either caused by or increased by the Jews. Remember that the century of queen Victoria was also the century of the Rothschilds and the British-Israel Movement.... and let's not forget about Benjamin D'Israeli !

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm suggesting there's a possibility that Anglo-supremacy was either caused by or increased by the Jews. Remember that the century of queen Victoria was also the century of the Rothschilds and the British-Israel Movement.... and let's not forget about Benjamin D'Israeli !
This can't be right because the kind of attitudes I detailed earlier were being expressed at a time when Jews were persona non grata from England. But there is actually a deeper reason. Supremacist attitudes are a feature of any people who wish to dominate another, the Jews no more invented or caused this lust for domination than they caused envy, or pride or any other vice.

[IlluSionS667]

This can't be right because the kind of attitudes I detailed earlier were being expressed at a time when Jews were persona non grata from England.

Can you mention examples of Anglo-Saxon supremacism in pre-Cromwell England similar to 19th century Anglo-Saxon supremacism?

Supremacist attitudes are a feature of any people who wish to dominate another, the Jews no more invented or caused this lust for domination than they caused envy, or pride or any other vice.

The Romans didn't have these supremacist attitudes, yet the did have the wish to dominate others.

[Basil Fawlty]

Can you mention examples of Anglo-Saxon supremacism in pre-Cromwell England similar to 19th century Anglo-Saxon supremacism?Look, Anglo-Saxoin England was conquered by the Normans. The entire A-S aristocracy were put to death and the people subjugated by the Normans. If you want examples of Anglo-Norman supremacism, I have already cited some extracts from Geraldus Cambrensis.
The Romans didn't have these supremacist attitudes, yet the did have the wish to dominate others.That sentence is a contradiction. If they wished to dominate others then by definition they have a supremacist attitude. The ideology of this was the Romanitas-barbarian dichotomy.

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't see what the problem is. Compared to English technological advancement the Irish WERE primitive, and they probably did live like animals compared to the high English society that the author came from.If you are talking about Cambrensis then this must surely be a joke.

[harjit]

I'm suggesting there's a possibility that Anglo-supremacy was either caused by or increased by the Jews. Remember that the century of queen Victoria was also the century of the Rothschilds and the British-Israel Movement.... and let's not forget about Benjamin D'Israeli !

The British-Israel Movement is a blip on British history.

Benjamin D'Israeli is one man, who in fact mostly hid his Jewish background because it would get in the way of his personal ambitions.

[shanemac]

If you can reference respectable scientific studies which contain those theories then we can proceed.

Australian abos arrived in Australia 50,000 years ago... http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9394920/Australian-Aborigine

Cro-Magnon man evolved in Europe about 30,000 years ago...
http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/piclib/www/image.php?search=cro&getprev=81842


The brain is the most energy-expensive organ in the body accounting for 25% of the body's total energy expenditure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

[Ahknaton]

Here's a little example. There are still aboriginals who retain the traditional knowledge, which is wide and extensive. They understand everything about the environment; flora and fauna, how to find water, predict the weather based on signs and so on. When White Fellas' go to the outback they go in SUV's with GPS, and all the latest gadgets and so on. But sometimes they have breakdowns or simply run out of fuel 500 miles from anywhere. Then they die.

Aboriginals can and do walk across the continent carrying nothing. Who would you rather be with in the middle of the Australian continent? They are masters in their own world but helpless and lost in our world, just as we are heavily dependent on technology when we venture into theirs. But if it breaks down, we die, but they don't. However, their "technology" is totally inadequate for our world and yet their world has been taken away from them, except for a minority who persevere to keep tradition alive. They are a shattered people.
Yes, I think it is fair to say that the Australian aborigine is much better adapted to the Outback environment than are Europeans. This isn't really surprising. There is even some evidence that aborigines have higher visual IQs than Europeans (in particular visual memory), which would come in handy for memorizing landmarks and navigating on foot around the sparse Outback wilderness:
The aborigines of Australia and New Guinea also have very low IQs. Those in Australia migrated about 60,000 years ago from New Guinea, and share many physical traits. The median IQ for both groups is 62.

At the same time, Australian aborigines score 119 — well above the white average of 100 — on a spatial memory test that requires them to study 20 objects for 30 seconds and memorize their locations. This ability is thought to have evolved in the Australian desert, where hunters must remember even the slightest geographic features, and aborigines have excellent reputations as guides and trackers. This ability is still found in aborigines who have lived in cities for several generations, which suggests it is a genetic trait. Aborigines have quite small brains, but with disproportionately large right hemispheres, which is the area that handles spatial memory.
http://www.amren.com/ar/2006/06/

So, it's not a question of who's "superior" or "inferior" but who is adapted to what. The point remains that aborigines do not seem to adapt well to modern high-tech industrial civilization. I wouldn't label them as inferior in any absolute sense because of this, since it's relative to our social values that prize analytical thinking over other forms of intelligence, but differences do exist. I found that growing up in NZ I was able to basically ignore racial differences because Maoris are fairly similar to Europeans and you can just gloss over any differences as negligible. With aborigines I just don't think you can ignore it. IMHO the best option is to allow them to live as close as possible to a traditional lifestyle in their own communities without the corrosive influence of alcohol and other abused substances.

[Basil Fawlty]

Australian abos arrived in Australia 50,000 years ago... http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9394920/Australian-Aborigine

Cro-Magnon man evolved in Europe about 30,000 years ago...
http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/piclib/www/image.php?search=cro&getprev=81842


The brain is the most energy-expensive organ in the body accounting for 25% of the body's total energy expenditure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligenceAll very well, but how does any of this connect up to produce your theory that the aboriginals of Australia are sub-humans?

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes, I think it is fair to say that the Australian aborigine is much better adapted to the Outback environment than are Europeans. This isn't really surprising. There is even some evidence that aborigines have higher visual IQs than Europeans (in particular visual memory), which would come in handy for memorizing landmarks and navigating on foot around the sparse Outback wilderness:

http://www.amren.com/ar/2006/06/

So, it's not a question of who's "superior" or "inferior" but who is adapted to what. The point remains that aborigines do not seem to adapt well to modern high-tech industrial civilization. I wouldn't label them as inferior in any absolute sense because of this, since it's relative to our social values that prize analytical thinking over other forms of intelligence, but differences do exist. I found that growing up in NZ I was able to basically ignore racial differences because Maoris are fairly similar to Europeans and you can just gloss over any differences as negligible. With aborigines I just don't think you can ignore it. IMHO the best option is to allow them to live as close as possible to a traditional lifestyle in their own communities without the corrosive influence of alcohol and other abused substances.I think part of the problem is that aboriginal society was so radically different from ours and even from the Maori world that any kind of comparison is going to break down. Once that world collapsed, they as a people were left without any raison d'etre hence the appalling scenes of degradation to be witnessed. If you don't know your totemic animal or your colour code and you have not been initiated, then you don't exist as anything but a derelict human animal. Their world has collapsed, but they have not been brought into the new world, that is the core of their problem.

There are experimental communities in WA and NT which are structured as closely as possible along traditional lines, but with modern innovations of course, that run a strict no alcohol policy and even petrol driven cars are banned (petrol sniffing has been a problem). These intitaitves have been quite successful and may point the way to a happier future for the aboriginals. Then there are those who do want to become part of the modern world, and they also should be helped.

[Petr]

I think part of the problem is that aboriginal society was so radically different from ours and even from the Maori world that any kind of comparison is going to break down. Once that world collapsed, they as a people were left without any raison d'etre hence the appalling scenes of degradation to be witnessed. If you don't know your totemic animal or your colour code and you have not been initiated, then you don't exist as anything but a derelict human animal. Their world has collapsed, but they have not been brought into the new world, that is the core of their problem.
I agree, it's a terrible existential problem.

Btw, it's a standard secularist-pagan accusation that Christianity causes existential crises all around the world as it destroys the old gods and identities of pagan peoples. But unlike modern consumerist culture, Christianity gives a new spiritual identity to its stead. The inner agony of the modern Westerners comes from the fact that they have apostasized from Christianity but haven't been able to forge a vital new identity, even though people like Nietzsche have tried.

Traditional Roman Catholics have been in similar predicament ever since Vatican II. Their old world has collapsed, and they do not know what to do. Rapture-dispensationalist Protestants for their part react to the bewildering onslaught of modernism by getting apocalyptic and waiting for the end of the world. Russian peasant sectarians also saw the modernist reforms of Peter the Great as a sign that the end of the world was at hand (the basic driving theme of Dostoevsky's works was the terrible cultural shock that modernization caused in Old Russia).

Primitive doomsday-cults like the American-Indian "Ghost Dance" movement were born from a roughly similar kind of situation - as traditional peoples see their old way of life disappearing, they often prefer to go out with a bang rather that with a whimper. Götterdämmerung, the fall of old gods.

This is why I refuse to scoff at the antics of Armageddon-rapturists (even though I oppose them), for I know what inner torment drives their panicky behavior.


Petr

[shanemac]

Here's a little example. There are still aboriginals who retain the traditional knowledge, which is wide and extensive. They understand everything about the environment; flora and fauna, how to find water, predict the weather based on signs and so on. When White Fellas' go to the outback they go in SUV's with GPS, and all the latest gadgets and so on. But sometimes they have breakdowns or simply run out of fuel 500 miles from anywhere. Then they die.

Aboriginals can and do walk across the continent carrying nothing. Who would you rather be with in the middle of the Australian continent? They are masters in their own world but helpless and lost in our world, just as we are heavily dependent on technology when we venture into theirs. But if it breaks down, we die, but they don't. However, their "technology" is totally inadequate for our world and yet their world has been taken away from them, except for a minority who persevere to keep tradition alive. They are a shattered people.
If you can reference respectable scientific studies which contain those theories then we can proceed.

I have heard quite a lot of press coverage of the finding that the Aborigines have higher visual/spatial abilities than white people; but nothing of their 62 IQ. It seems that it's ok to suggest that non-whites are more intelligent than whites, but not the other way round.

A wolf probably understands how to survive in the Boreal forests of Siberia without the aid of technology better than man. An elephant probably has a better mental map and memory of its terrain than man. An eagle probably has much better visual abilities than man. Do these traits mean that these animals are "more intelligent than man"?

According to Richard Lynn, the average Australian Aboriginals' IQ is around 62.

Lynn first looked at the Australian Aborigines in his 1978 chapter - it listed 3 studies, and he estimated their intelligence, much like Sub-Saharan Africans, as 85. In 1991 the same three studies were listed, and there is no suggestion Lynn lowered his estimate. When Ed Miller examined studies of Australoid intelligence in 1996, he too suggested something like 85. In comparison RDiI now lists data from 29 studies of Australoid populations, including those of New Guinea for a combined sample of 4,785. Since that time Lynn has dropped the Australoid IQ average a dramatic 23 points, down to 62. This is considerably lower than all previous estimates have suggested, but Lynn’s review also highlights just how neglected this populations intelligence has been, even by Lynn, until now. Small admixture and adoption studies exist for Australian Aborigine intelligence and both suggest something hereditary. These populations have had some of the lowest technological development of all populations and also have the smallest brains of any living population. An exception is the visual parts of the cortex, which are much larger than in Europeans. Interesting given their much lower intelligence, then, that their visual memory abilities are substantially superior - one researcher found a visual memory IQ of 119. Genetics are further suggested because the advantage is also true for very young children and for aborigines born into modern urban settings.

Source: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php

[Basil Fawlty]

I have heard quite a lot of press coverage of the finding that the Aborigines have higher visual/spatial abilities than white people; but nothing of their 62 IQ. It seems that it's ok to suggest that non-whites are more intelligent than whites, but not the other way round.Higher visual/psatial abilities is not higher intelligence. Similarly, scoring well on IQ tests is a measure of scoring well on IQ tests. In order to even comprehend what an IQ test is asking of you, preupposes a high degree of familiarity and idenitifcation with the values of the sort of society which produces IQ tests. No one ever seems to pick up on this pretty obvious point.
A wolf probably understands how to survive in the Boreal forests of Siberia without the aid of technology better than man. An elephant probably has a better mental map and memory of its terrain than man. An eagle probably has much better visual abilities than man. Do these traits mean that these animals are "more intelligent than man"? None of this is relevant as you are comparing animals with humans. My example compared two groups of humans coming from radically different worlds.

[skekTek]

Higher visual/psatial abilities is not higher intelligence. Similarly, scoring well on IQ tests is a measure of scoring well on IQ tests. In order to even comprehend what an IQ test is asking of you, preupposes a high degree of familiarity and idenitifcation with the values of the sort of society which produces IQ tests. No one ever seems to pick up on this pretty obvious point.

I don't understand how a test like raven's progressive matrices could be biased to one culture or value set. http://www.intershop.it/testqi/testqi1/iqtest1.htm

Galton-Cattel type IQ tests are moderately positively correlated with culture biased IQ tests, yet its hard to see how such a test could itself be biased.

Also, the group with the highest cultural familiarity with the origin of the tests don't actually score the highest, and when these groups or lower performing groups start to assimilate into the culture the tests originated from, the gap between the host group and themselves does not dissapear.

None of this is relevant as you are comparing animals with humans. My example compared two groups of humans coming from radically different worlds.

Geographic isolation between two groups eventually creates different species. How far away would they have to be in order to make a comparison between two groups relevant? It seems absurd for the comparison to become valid at a specific point, say, when the two groups could not produce offspring.

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't understand how a test like raven's progressive matrices could be biased to one culture or value set. http://www.intershop.it/testqi/testqi1/iqtest1.htm

Galton-Cattel type IQ tests are moderately positively correlated with culture biased IQ tests, yet its hard to see how such a test could itself be biased.

Also, the group with the highest cultural familiarity with the origin of the tests don't actually score the highest, and when these groups or lower performing groups start to assimilate into the culture the tests originated from, the gap between the host group and themselves does not dissapear.The very notion of such tests is highly specific to a culture such as modern America and its imitators. Such things would be deemed as incomprehensible in traditional societies.
Geographic isolation between two groups eventually creates different species. How far away would they have to be in order to make a comparison between two groups relevant?Seeing as only racists regard them as sub-human or part of some other speices, I think the onus is on them to prove these extraoridnary assertions.

[skekTek]

The very notion of such tests is highly specific to a culture such as modern America and its imitators. Such things would be deemed as incomprehensible in traditional societies.

I don't quite understand your view of the relation between intelligence test scores and culture of the participant. Is it that cultural familiarity to the west boosts them while unfamiliarity depresses them? If this is the case, then how could you explain chinese living in China surpassing white Americans?

I think it is more likely that your position is that a comparison between two different cultures is meaningless because the culture someone is born into permanently influences the way that people think, and so, they cannot really be compared. In other words, it is culture not genetics. If this is your position, then why do asians who are brought up in western culture do better than white Americans?

Personally, I feel that the culture position has some merit, however, I think the reason why it has been able to substitute for genetic tendency is because genes and culture are invariably tangled up together. It seems that culture, has to some extent a genetic basis. In other words, it isn't something that randomly falls from the sky, but rather it reflects the values and dispositions of the members of the culture. It seems quite unlikely that a violent culture could arise from a people strongly repulsed by violence. This repulsion must be at least based in genetics.

Seeing as only racists regard them as sub-human or part of some other speices, I think the onus is on them to prove these extraoridnary assertions.

They are adapted to a different environment. This doesn't make them 'inferior' any more than an elephant is inferior to a cow. While not perfect, the proof is anthopological data and psychometric tests.

[Petr]

Seeing as only racists regard them as sub-human or part of some other speices, I think the onus is on them to prove these extraoridnary assertions.
Hey Basil, it seems our old friend Revilo P. Oliver also made some pretty edgy comments about Abos back in the 1950s:

"“Dr. Montagu, who composed the UNESCO Statement on Race, has again skillfully trimmed the facts of anthropology to fit the Liberal propaganda line. Every anthropologist knows, for example, that aborigines in Australia propagated their species for a hundred thousand years without ever suspecting that pregnancy might be a consequence of sexual intercourse. Equally striking evidence of intellectual capacity is provided by the many peoples that never discovered how to kindle a fire or plant a seed. But Dr. Montagu, after making a great show of cautious objectivity, proclaims that ‘anthropologists are unable to find any evidence’ of ‘significant differences in mental capacity’ between ‘ethnic groups.’ If you can tell such whoppers with a straight face, you too can ask the ‘United Nations’ to recognize your right to largesse from the pockets of American taxpayers.”"

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=519870&postcount=5


Petr

[mongrel]

Hey Basil, it seems our old friend Revilo P. Oliver also made some pretty edgy comments about Abos back in the 1950s:

"“Dr. Montagu, who composed the UNESCO Statement on Race, has again skillfully trimmed the facts of anthropology to fit the Liberal propaganda line. Every anthropologist knows, for example, that aborigines in Australia propagated their species for a hundred thousand years without ever suspecting that pregnancy might be a consequence of sexual intercourse. Equally striking evidence of intellectual capacity is provided by the many peoples that never discovered how to kindle a fire or plant a seed. But Dr. Montagu, after making a great show of cautious objectivity, proclaims that ‘anthropologists are unable to find any evidence’ of ‘significant differences in mental capacity’ between ‘ethnic groups.’ If you can tell such whoppers with a straight face, you too can ask the ‘United Nations’ to recognize your right to largesse from the pockets of American taxpayers.”"

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=519870&postcount=5


Petr
Hi Petr, I think it is Mr Oliver who is telling whoppers, these myths that Oliver repeats about Aboriginal people are propogated extensively by the ignorant but are not factual. Not only did the aboriginal people know the conseqences of intercourse but took precaution against it regulating the numbers of the tribe. Jens Bjerre details one such method, there are others including the use of native plants as contraceptives well detailed by anthropologists. Interestingly enough population regulation is often promoted by white supremacists as being as being some sort of symbol of superiority.
http://www.heretical.com/bjerre/aborig2.html
Finally, in the early evening, before darkness fell, they performed the final initiation on a youth of fifteen or sixteen. He knew what was about to happen, and putting a stick between his teeth, so as to grind his pain into silence, he lay down on his back on top of two men, who as before were kneeling down to furnish an improvised operating table. What followed is difficult to describe outside a medical gathering. With a sharp knife they performed a deep operation which, without depriving the young man of his power of propagation, yet regulated the use of it to special occasions. A hole was pierced right through his sex organ near the root, and there was inserted into it, at either end, a splinter to keep the aperture from growing together again. The object was to ensure that henceforth the urine and the sperm would be ejected through this little hole high up on the sex organ, instead of by the normal channel. Only when the lad put a finger on the hole, and kept it there, would the fluids in future be able to pass through the proper outlet. The boy did not utter a sound while this grisly operation was performed, and only with difficulty could he stand on his feet afterwards. His body trembled, he glistened with sweat, his eyes were glazed with silent agony.

This grotesque and revolting practice has an obvious explanation. The Australian Aborigines are probably the first primitive people to devise a wholly effective birth control. In the baking wilderness they inhabit, numbers must be kept down, for they cannot maintain large families on their low level of subsistence; and long treks would be impossible with a large family of small children and babies in arms.


Aborignal people were similarly adept in the use of fire
http://www.anbg.gov.au/anbg/aboriginal-trail.html
The Aborigines have lived in Australia for at least 40,000 years, and in all those long generations the land provided them with everything they needed for a healthy life. They also learned to manage their country in such ways that its resources renewed themselves and were not used up.
How did they do this? To quote Edward Curr, an early settler, they 'tilled their ground and cultivated their pastures with fire'. By controlled burning, they kept the bush open and allowed the growth of new seedlings in the ash-bed. Aborigines in Arnhem Land still do this. Many Australian plants will re-grow quickly after a fire; indeed some plants such as the grass-tree (Xanthorrhoea spp.) flower more prolifically after fire.

At least half of the food eaten by Aborigines came from plants, and it was the task of the women to collect them. Just as we eat root vegetables, greens, fruits and seeds, so did the Aborigines. Fruits, seeds and greens were only available during their appropriate seasons, but roots could usually be dug up all the year round, because the earth acted as a natural storage cupboard. Important foods were replanted. The regular digging-over of the soil, and the thinning out of clumps by collection of plants, together with burning to provide fertiliser, is not very different from what we do in our own gardens, and the whole country was in a way an Aboriginal garden.

I think most Australian schoolchildren would be aware of the fact that Aboriginal people used fire to control the environment, I cant believe any anthropologist with any credibilty would state otherwise unless they had another agenda.