|
Returning to invasion/settlement semantics chat: "invasion" sort of sits wrong with me. "Invasion" to me means Germany invading France or the US invading Iraq - a modern, wholescale, fully intended attempt to overthrow a government or a society. Whereas the British coming to Australia was a process that took place over a century, with differing aims all along the way, and one which was a lot closer to a first contact event; a hugely powerful and technologically advanced society encountering a Stone Age one, something that was not even remotely on a level playing field. "Colonisation" sounds a lot better to me and I don't think that's euphemising it; "colonialism" is a dirty word these days and rightfully so. Also I don't know why the gently caress this sort of thing would rock the boat now, I was in high school in the early 2000s and distinctly remember showing things from the Aboriginal point of view to be a huge part of the history curriculum - let alone at a university in 2016.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Veering back towards Australian invasion discussion... it was definitely a horrible murderous dispossession of the land's native inhabitants which continues to disadvantage them to this day, but, having said that, I can't say that I'd rather be an Aboriginal in the 1700s than an Aboriginal today. And I don't like all the stuff where people go on about how the Aboriginals "lived in perfect harmony with nature" etc. It's close to noble savage stuff. Didn't they wipe out all the megafauna? Humans are humans, we shouldn't be idealising any sort of society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Yes. The problem I think comes when Australians freak out at holding two different notions in their heads. They can't accept that the country they love might have done awful things in the past (or the present) and they can't accept that dispossession and colonisation is bad (and should be acknowledged and recompensed) even if the descendants of those who were dispossessed are better off than they would have been otherwise. Which is the same as that old "British brought the railway to India" malarkey. Like, yes, they did, indisputably, craft India into a better nation than it would be otherwise, but that doesn't excuse the exploitation and horror.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I think there is a difference between acknowledging that their civilization lived for 40,000 or 50,000 odd years without completely loving up their environment, and idolizing the noble savage. Protecting the environment is very important but it's not the sole factor by which a civilisation should be judged.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Happiness of its citizens? Treatment of the downtrodden? Ability to stave off existential threats? All these, I'd also throw in democracy, gender equality, opportunities for individuals to try different kinds of lifestyles, technological progress, and probably some other stuff I'll think of later. And the problem is every time you say this is you come off as an indignant white guy whingeing about how good his society is. I'm a card carrying lefty and I don't think Western society is perfect but it is still a hell of a lot better than almost every human society from the past ten thousand years. None of which means we shouldn't acknowledge how we hosed over the Aboriginal population (and, more importantly, still gently caress them over) but it just really bugs me when people go too far in the opposite direction and start idealising tribalist societies. Much like how it shits me when people in this thread seem to literally believe Australia is an awful, monstrous society when - relatively speaking - it's actually one of the fairest and most tolerant places in human history.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
hooman posted:Advancements in technology improve people's lives. I'm not saying it wasn't. But when the gulf between two civilisations is so wide, I don't think you can have any sort of introduction of technology without resulting in a massive and lethal upheaval, i.e. the introduction of firearms to the Maori in New Zealand. Or the introduction of firearms and horses in North America. Not to mention smallpox and other diseases.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Thank you Tony for weaponising royal commissions
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Negligent posted:read David Marr's quarterly essay on Bill Shorten, he wont step down when he loses, he will make the party sack him, he has wanted to be PM since forever which makes it all the more delicious that he won't ever get the job. Gosh that sounds familiar
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
I still remember Marr's QE on Abbott before he was elected, when he says he asked Abbott off the record why he wanted to be PM, and wrote "I deeply wish I could tell you what he said." Maddeningly tantalising.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Is it true that Anzac Day was never really much of a big deal until Howard specifically tried to promote it? I mean I guess we didn't really have any wars between Vietnam and Afghanistan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
open24hours posted:Whether they would have been benevolent rulers is irrelevant though? WWI was not WWII, and if you think Germany had an interest in seizing Canada/Australia/NZ from the British Empire then you don't have a firm grasp of how imperialism and colonialism worked. It's already been pointed out to you that Australia was an independent nation at the time. More importantly it was also majority white, which meant it was seen as more of a displaced European nation (like Canada or NZ) than a jungle full of resources with a few white overseers which could change hands as easily as shares in a company or gold reserves (like various African territories).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 07:46
|
|