PDA

View Full Version : OT, Australia says sorry



hueywolf123
02-13-2008, 03:53 AM
Today, History was made when our Prime Minister made a formal apology to our indigenous people.
I do know this forum is against anything political (and with good reason), but I thought I'd just say this;
Thank goodness we've finally admitted to our past wrongs, and to any Aboriginal people on this forum, I extend a hand of friendship.
I hope now, that we can work towards a true reconciliation.

U301
02-13-2008, 06:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Yes I agree, it was an outstanding gesture by Mr Rudd and the Australian people!
Not forgetting that in times passed peoples sensibilities were different!
Good Luck and Good Hunting to Australia!
KUrtz

Foehammer-1
02-13-2008, 07:42 AM
A lil OT, my ex-gf has some native Canadian (aka some indian tribe)in her. And she complained to me a few times about all the nasty things white people did to "her people". Lol, even tho most of her now is French, who were indeed the people who were first to oppress the natives. Makes no sense to me, but ok. Sorry for hijacking a thread, it just reminded me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kaleun1961
02-13-2008, 08:00 AM
I am really biting my tongue here. I've written two posts but scrapped them before I posted them. I know I would offend some people by what I have to say, so I'll just leave it at that.

Celeon999
02-13-2008, 08:24 AM
We also have some problems with the Herero in South West Africa and have issued an apology recently.

Herero massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_massacre)

Afterall, it was their land on which they fought for their own freedom and recieved harsh retaliation for that.

There are as always two sides of the story. The Herero's were executing prisoners, often even in front of their families.

klcarroll
02-13-2008, 08:45 AM
The reality of all this is that during the "Age of Expansion", virtually every European Power that participated had serious "Problems" with the indigenous populations they encountered.

It doesn't matter if you're talking about "The New World", Africa, or Australia and the Southwest Pacific: .....The results were always the same: Europeans and their Guns -1, Indigenous Population -0.

While it is no longer possible to apologize to the people who were the actual victims, ...formal apologies are still good because they indicate that we now realize that such thinking and actions are no longer appropriate.

We now need to do our best to live up to the spirit of those apologies!

klcarroll

Kaleun1961
02-13-2008, 08:50 AM
I'm all for making amends, but I am afraid what usually happens is that we end up through our taxes paying welfare in perpetuity. Here in Canada it is a pathetic situation; many of the Natives are stuck between two worlds, the old and the new. We patronize them on one hand and then make them welfare dependents on the other. It is good for neither of us. They must either live in their own world or live in ours. That is the sad reality of life, a reality that existed long before the first European set foot on a ship. Worlds collide, since we have the tendency of moving around.

BTOG46
02-13-2008, 09:03 AM
The thing is, some cultures hold grievances from way further back than this, how far back do people go before they no longer feel a formal apology is needed.
Should the countries of Europe seek an apology from the Italians, after all, their ancestors enslaved most of Europe a couple of thousand years ago.
Just look at the tension between countries at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, the Greeks and Turks still have hang ups from the days of the Ottoman Empire, which is awkward as they are both supposed to be part of the NATO alliance.
How far back is it ok for an apology, and how far back should we go before we say it was just ancient history.
At the end of the day, an apology seems to be more an act of conscience easing for the offenders, than an attempt at making amends.

Celeon999
02-13-2008, 09:19 AM
Should the countries of Europe seek an apology from the Italians, after all, their ancestors enslaved most of Europe a couple of thousand years ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

As a "barbarian" ....this pic makes me unease... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif




http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3121/0002145424br9xv3.jpg

BTOG46
02-13-2008, 10:42 AM
Now if the "Theme Park" Legions in "Rainbow Six" had been as well armed, the terrorists would never have taken all those hostages.

Old_grey_Wolf
02-14-2008, 07:06 AM
I find it odd that most of the people I meet that are more in favor of these tardy "apologies", are also more likely to believe strongly for Darwinism/evolution/survival of the fittest. I am not endorsing colonialism or creationism. Two things do come to mind when I hear these stories.

1. The most sincere "apology" would be to pack up and leave. Short of that, simply not trying to enslave and slaughter them will have to suffice.

2. Europe does not have the only iron deposits or the only materials for making gunpowder. Native peoples around the world were not denied any advantages, they simply did not use them. Perhaps the ghosts of these ancient,lazy ancestors should be the ones apologizing to their modern descendants?

This is all "tongue in cheek", but I do not see much good in insincere, politically motivated, photo-op apologies that change nothing.

-OgW

The_Silent_O
02-14-2008, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Old_grey_Wolf:

2. Europe does not have the only iron deposits or the only materials for making gunpowder. Native peoples around the world were not denied any advantages, they simply did not use them. Perhaps the ghosts of these ancient,lazy ancestors should be the ones apologizing to their modern descendants?

-OgW

Your should also consider that the Europeans also had a higher tolarance to disease during the time of colonialnism.

...and had better farming pratices which greatly expanded their populations during this period.

things that had nothing to do with weapons or force.

A good book to read is "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond -- it's almost a users guide to the old PC game "Civilization"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs%2C_and_Steel

Kaleun1961
02-14-2008, 07:43 AM
I read that book and while I agree with much of it, I disagree with some of his conclusions. He seems to infer that Europeans came to dominate simply by means of accidental geography. I think there is more to it than that and lies more with qualities of the peoples themselves, their natural aptitudes and cultural endowments.

klcarroll
02-14-2008, 08:40 AM
I think there is more to it than that and lies more with qualities of the peoples themselves, their natural aptitudes and cultural endowments.


I think K61 is on to something here: ....An interest in Exploration and Expansion seems to be a basic part of the European mindset. (...And those of us who descend from European stock.)

klcarroll

Kaleun1961
02-14-2008, 10:04 AM
It's also the "innate" desire to tinker, to invent and innovate. For example, when Europeans came to the New World, they were surprised to see that the New World peoples hadn't even invented the wheel. Subsistence type peoples seem content to maintain their communities at a much lower level, with no impulse to innovate and develop technologies beyond a certain level. I really think that had not Europeans landed in North America, the plains Indians would still be roaming about in bands, carrying a limited number of worldly goods with them. South American societies, however, did have a higher level of organization, as evidenced by the unearthing of Incan and Mayan settlements.

klcarroll
02-14-2008, 10:22 AM
I really think that had not Europeans landed in North America, the plains Indians would still be roaming about in bands, carrying a limited number of worldly goods with them. South American societies, however, did have a higher level of organization, as evidenced by the unearthing of Incan and Mayan settlements.

This does raise an interesting question; ......As the current theories maintain that the original population of the New World all migrated across the "Bearing Land Bridge" at some distant point in time.

How is it that the Central and South American cultures developed advanced stonework and metallurgy, while the North American Indigenous population remained at what amounts to a Stone Age existence??

It tends to give additional credence to the alternative theories that Central and South America were originally settled by South Pacific cultures voyaging east.

klcarroll

Kaleun1961
02-14-2008, 10:47 AM
That is entirely possible. Silent Otto mentioned Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs and Steel." Diamond has a newer book out, which I highly recommend to those interested in this sort of thing: "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." He covers the spread of the Polynesian people across the Pacific. Also important, there are significant barriers between the movements north-south between North America and Central and South America. The large deserts of Mexico and the southern U.S. were significant barriers to travel in those days. One setting out on a journey across that terrain would have to be highly organized and supplied. The people of those days were mostly not prepared or equipped to do that. This is why their societies and agriculture on either side of this divide are so different. Either those to the south of this barrier travelled at a time when the barrier wasn't there or was smaller, or they migrated there separately from the northern peoples, i.e. as suggested from across the Pacific from the west. I think the latter to be more likely, although I'm certainly no expert on these things. Migration from two distinct races of peoples could account, at least in part, for the differences in organization and culture between them.

Old_grey_Wolf
02-14-2008, 11:23 AM
Do not count "conflict" out as a driving force behind the European mindset. Ever since the Cro-Magnons helped wipe out the Neanderthals, Europe has seen wave after wave after wave of immigrants, invaders, and refugees sweep or drift in. If you became lazy and content at any point in European history, you soon found yourself overwhelmed. Not the whole story perhaps, but one aspect in my opinion. (explains the higher disease resistance too)

-OgW

Kaleun1961
02-14-2008, 11:37 AM
Actually, we were a much "dirtier" people than the New World natives. Because of our close proximity with cattle and beasts of burden, our immune systems were wired totally differently than those of the New World people. We brought mostly smallpox, which was devastating to them, as they didn't have cattle to acclimate their immune systems. But the exchange wasn't all one way: they gave us syphilis, a disease which to them was a minor thing, but to Europeans was much worse. The wig obsession of the Europeans was much due in part to having to cover up the symptoms of syphilis, as they lost their hair. The upper classes were very promiscuous amongst themselves, thus the reason for the popularity of the wigs, as many of them lost their hair from syphilis.

When plants and animals [including people] are suddenly transplanted to a new ecosystem, it is common for there to be major adjustments. Western people are very prone to malaria, for example, when they visit tropical areas. The merging of two distinctive peoples who had lived for many years apart, isolated from one another was bound to cause problems. And it did.

comanderFritz
02-14-2008, 07:27 PM
I do not understand why Australia apologized at all? As I read earlier in the post where do you let things go, 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, 1500 years I mean where does it end? The indigenous people were simply outright conquered, how is this different from any other country conquering another country. The victors are not supposed to apologize to the defeated. I must admit I'm a bit of a social Darwinist myself but if you can't learn and fight back then you must adapt. I find indigenous people didn't do this very well. Except for a few examples here in America and other parts around the world perhaps of successful counter attacks and temporary victories on the behalf of the natives. Here in America today for instance I believe an Indian reservation is at most useless. If they don't assimilate into the general culture they will never be fully accepted. Most immigrants to America that assimilate are eventually accepted and called Americans. The Irish, Germans, Eastern Europeans, Chinese and Asians, everyone is eventually accepted. Eventually Mexicans, Latin Americans, Indians (from India) and other new immigrants will be accepted to since they are in our everyday lives. They will go through the 70-100 year rough period every group went through but there'll make it someday. Our Native Americans that are seen in public dressed normally and functioning are also accepted. But when we see pictures of them living in trailers in the middle of Arizona they are not accepted as equals I think. In the end everyone is equal in the eyes of god but not always in the eye of the public, you have to become part of that public first. I notice groups that stay in isolation are never truly thought of as equal citizens.

Sorry if this post is contrary to many of your all beliefs or offends anyone, it shouldn't, but if it does I apologize in advance.

Worf101
02-15-2008, 09:11 AM
Interesting thread...

For a little background I suggest you see the film "Rabbit Proof Fence". It depicts the Australian Govts practice of removing idigenous children from their parents and "westernizing" them in camps by force. This practice continued until the 1970's. The fence referred to was one put up to prevent aboriginal children from returning home to their people.

Now in my mind, they might not have to apologize for being land grabbing thieves, genocidal murderers, or a host of other sins... from the 1800's but they damn well need to apologize for deeds done in the name of civilization 30 years ago. I'm not aboriginal I point no fingers, lay no blame. I think apolgies are worthless without action.

Da Worfster

comanderFritz
02-15-2008, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Worf101:


Now in my mind, they might not have to apologize for being land grabbing thieves, genocidal murderers, or a host of other sins... from the 1800's but they damn well need to apologize for deeds done in the name of civilization 30 years ago. I'm not aboriginal I point no fingers, lay no blame. I think apolgies are worthless without action.

Da Worfster

30 years ago.... thati agree with you on is worth an appology

Kaleun1961
02-15-2008, 02:04 PM
We had a similar scandal here in Canada a number of years ago. The Anglican Church of Canada used to run schools for the Native Indian kids, wherein they more or less tried to drive out of them their "savage heathen" ways. Examples included punishments if they were caught speaking in their mother language. Then there's the inevitable sexual molestations by paedophile incidents which are bound to happen when you put a bunch of "celibate" priests, from any denomination, in custodial care of minor children. Really sickens me when that stuff happens, Indian kids, any kids. My solution is to take the offender out to the town square, throw a rope over a lamp post and string him up by the neck. But then, some accuse me of being right wing. All I know is, the liberals of the world want to coddle these creeps, when most of the rest of us know the only way to "cure" a paedophile is to terminate him with extreme prejudice.

PhantomKira
02-15-2008, 02:04 PM
Along the lines of the native ways vs the european ways, I seem to recall that until the horse came along, the plains natives of North America used to run entire herds of buffalo off cliffs. Only after the the horse came along did they become the environmentalists many take claim to, with the ability to take individual animals without destroying the entire herd.

Kaleun1961
02-15-2008, 02:11 PM
Yes, some like to make out that they were the original Greenpeacers. I admire in many ways the Aboriginals of North America and their ability to live mostly in harmony with the natural world, well, as much as I am told that's what they did. But radical changes in their world showed them to be as materially grabbing at times as the rest of us. New studies are showing how they drastically altered the plains environment, so that the population of the buffalo exploded. I can't recall the exact details, but I recall from the article that the population of bison/buffalo were stable at a smaller level, then the Plains Indians learned ways to alter the environment to massively increase the size of the herds. The buffalo population exploded, and the White man whittled them down, both to reduce an environmental "pest" as much as to control the Indians.

We have to find a better way to live with this world and our fellow humans. The present trends are ominous in their ultimate outcome.

Edit: Doing a quick Google search will turn up articles about the Indians and their practices. Here's just one, for example:

Dances With Myths (http://www.reason.com/news/show/30146.html)


For example, where land was abundant, it made sense to farm extensively and move on. Indians would commonly clear land for farming by cutting and burning forests. After clearing, they would farm the fields extensively until they depleted soil fertility; then the Indians would clear new lands and start the process again. From New England to the Southwest, wherever Indian populations were dense and farming was intense, deforestation was common. Indeed, the mysterious departure of the Anasazi from the canyons of southeastern Utah in the 13th century may have been due to their having depleted the wood supplies they used for fuel.

Similarly, where game was plentiful, Indians used only the choicest cuts and left the rest. When the buffalo hunting tribes on the Great Plains herded hundreds of animals over cliffs in the 18th and early 19th centuries, tons of meat were left to rot or to be eaten by scavengers--hardly a result consistent with the environmental ethic attributed to Indians. Samuel Hearne, a fur trader near Hudson's Bay, recorded in his journal in the 1770s that the Chipewayan Indians would slaughter large numbers of caribou and musk ox, eat only a few tongues, and leave the rest to rot.

klcarroll
02-15-2008, 02:47 PM
When one does serious research on the subject; .....The hard truth emerges.

The "harmony with the natural world" that is often credited to the North American Indigenous Population is largely the result of 20th century myths. Their immediate concern was their day-to-day sustenance, and if there was a choice between easily meeting that goal, or "being green" (Assuming they would even understand that concept!), .....easy food and shelter got the vote every time!

klcarroll

comanderFritz
02-15-2008, 03:47 PM
Kaleun1961
well not to make this political but it seems now us right wingers are just discussing among ourselves on this thread. which is good.

M0ttie
02-16-2008, 01:38 PM
We had a similar scandal here in Canada a number of years ago. The Anglican Church of Canada used to run schools for the Native Indian kids, wherein they more or less tried to drive out of them their "savage heathen" ways. Examples included punishments if they were caught speaking in their mother language. Then there's the inevitable sexual molestations by paedophile incidents which are bound to happen when you put a bunch of "celibate" priests, from any denomination, in custodial care of minor children. Really sickens me when that stuff happens, Indian kids, any kids. My solution is to take the offender out to the town square, throw a rope over a lamp post and string him up by the neck. But then, some accuse me of being right wing. All I know is, the liberals of the world want to coddle these creeps, when most of the rest of us know the only way to "cure" a paedophile is to terminate him with extreme prejudice.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif