Phanerothyme Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by mojoworking They may have been in Australia over 40,000 years, but the Aborigines never established much of a culture. Really? I think you might want to argue that one with an Australian Aborigine, I don't feel qualified to say much about it. You to dismiss it as "not much of a culture" - that to me smacks of received wisdom, rather than actual knowledge, but I am prepared to stand corrected. Up until the white man arrived in Australia 200 years ago, the indigenous people were still nomadic hunter gatherers. They didn't have any agriculture to speak of, they had built no permanent buildings or dwellings, used only the most basic tools/weapons All largely true, but does that preclude them from being a civilisation? and are generally regarded as one of the most primitive races of people in the world Not by me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Phanerothyme Really? I think you might want to argue that one with an Australian Aborigine, I don't feel qualified to say much about it. You to dismiss it as "not much of a culture" - that to me smacks of received wisdom, rather than actual knowledge, but I am prepared to stand corrected. All largely true, but does that preclude them from being a civilisation? Not by me Yours is an idealistic view but I suspect you've never visited Australia. A few cave paintings and the invention of the didgeridoo and boomerang don't add up to a "culture" in the accepted sense of the word, I'm afraid. Before white settlement, the Aborigine people consisted of countless tribes speaking numerous languages, none of it written. To put it bluntly, they were a primitive race and it's simply not accurate to put them in the same sentence as the ancient Egyptian civilisation, as you did in your original post. You may find it unpalatable, but in over 40,000 years Aborigines still hadn't developed their civilisation to the level of, say, the Ancient Britons, yet I don't notice anyone claiming great things for them in the culture stakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by geronimo What I wonder is will they attract the same hatred from certain elements of the muslim community as has the West? and if they did what would be the likely outcome. Interesting point, Geronimo. I realise that most of your posts, while admittedly hilarious, aren't to be taken seriously, but here's my response anyway: What you should really be asking is: "Will China attract the same hatred from certain elements of the West as has the Middle East" Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Yours is an idealistic view but I suspect you've never visited Australia. A few cave paintings and the invention of the didgeridoo and boomerang don't add up to a "culture" in the accepted sense of the word, I'm afraid. Hmm, so aborigines are not worthy of being described as having a "culture"? I didn't realise "culture" was a quantitive term? What is the criteria - how nice the artefacts look like in a museum's glass case? How much blood a people has on their hands? Sounds very much like an apology for imperialism to me, I'm afraid. Or should the aborigines have been grateful for the rampaging diseases and subjugation brought by the crusading, culturally superior white man? This sort of dismissive attitude is all too prevalent amongst many Australians I've met... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by mojoworking Yours is an idealistic view but I suspect you've never visited Australia. A few cave paintings and the invention of the didgeridoo and boomerang don't add up to a "culture" in the accepted sense of the word, I'm afraid. I am no expert on Aboriginal culture, as you clearly seem to be, although your dismissive attitude makes me wince. But I have spent quite a while looking into the idea of 'Dreamtime'. I am interested in such a different spiritual outlook, that is not only complex and richly detailed, but consisently referenced for much longer than any other religion/belief system. And your notion of what constitutes progress, achievement and culture are quite blinkered IMO, owing more to outdated Victorian notions of ethnography than a serious consideration of culture and civilisation. And I still maintain my original point on Billycottons observation that China is the worlds oldest civilisation - it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killian Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Abdul What you should really be asking is: "Will China attract the same hatred from certain elements of the West as has the Middle East" Many thanks surely both elements are guilty of hatred, or am i reading it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Greenback Hmm, so aborigines are not worthy of being described as having a "culture"? I didn't realise "culture" was a quantitive term? What is the criteria - how nice the artefacts look like in a museum's glass case? How much blood a people has on their hands? Sounds very much like an apology for imperialism to me, I'm afraid. Or should the aborigines have been grateful for the rampaging diseases and subjugation brought by the crusading, culturally superior white man? This sort of dismissive attitude is all too prevalent amongst many Australians I've met... It wasn't so much the "the rampaging diseases and subjugation brought by the crusading, culturally superior white man" that proved the downfall of the Aboriginal people (like it or not, that was widespread throughout the colonised world), it was the introduction of alcohol. To this day it remains the single most widespread social problem among Aborigines. Very sad, but unfortunately true. You may not like the idea, but apart from the museum artefacts, the Aboriginal "culture" today consists of little more than a few individuals painting their bodies and dancing on Sydney Harbour to entertain the tourists. Meanwhile, the "real" Aborigines live in inner-city squalor (apart from those who reside in special homeland reserves, where alcohol is, for the most part, banned). Most of them are unable to work so they live on government hand-outs, victims of alcoholism, domestic violence and rampant petty crime. They have the highest imprisonment rate and the shortest life expectancy of all Australians. Millions of dollars are thrown at this problem year after year and still it remains. Like you, I had a wishy washy, lefty view of the situation when I first came to Australia. I quickly realised that you simply can't apply an idealistic, new age, PC attitude to this situation (ie "Modern Parents" in Viz comic, if you know what I mean). It's far bigger and more complex than that. One thing is certain, however. Ancient Egypt it's not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by mojoworking ... One thing is certain, however. Ancient Egypt it's not No one suggested that it was. Merely that China has a dubious claim on the being oldest civilisation in the world. The Aboriginal culture (which isn't much of a culture if you insist) was remarkably stable and coherent for over 10,00 years at least, which keeps them in the running, with the persians who of course invented electric batteries 4000 years ago, and have 8000 years of written history. It was just that you dismissed the aborigines from being a civilisation at all. That means you consider them, throughout history, as not having any civilization. In fact they had a well developed belief system that encompassed law, land and ethereal realms that had been accreted and refined over thousands of years and that was widely held among aborigines from disparate groups, with little or no variation. It was thinking like that, that led to them being hunted like game by the 'white man' and the complete destruction of their cultural heritage, not to mention the forced evictions, adoptions, extrajudicial killings. I believe it to be wrong to suppose that the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia do not have any valid grievances when you look at their culture now. Had this not happened a few hundred years ago, then their culture now would add up to a bit more than a few great Grandmas in the British Museum and Tribal Showpieces for fairs and fetes, dont you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by Phanerothyme No one suggested that it was. Merely that China has a dubious claim on the being oldest civilisation in the world. The Aboriginal culture (which isn't much of a culture if you insist) was remarkably stable and coherent for over 10,00 years at least, which keeps them in the running, with the persians who of course invented electric batteries 4000 years ago, and have 8000 years of written history. It was just that you dismissed the aborigines from being a civilisation at all. That means you consider them, throughout history, as not having any civilization. In fact they had a well developed belief system that encompassed law, land and ethereal realms that had been accreted and refined over thousands of years and that was widely held among aborigines from disparate groups, with little or no variation. It was thinking like that, that led to them being hunted like game by the 'white man' and the complete destruction of their cultural heritage, not to mention the forced evictions, adoptions, extrajudicial killings. I believe it to be wrong to suppose that the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia do not have any valid grievances when you look at their culture now. Had this not happened a few hundred years ago, then their culture now would add up to a bit more than a few great Grandmas in the British Museum and Tribal Showpieces for fairs and fetes, dont you think? I wholeheartedly agree with your basic argument re. China. I just think you backed a loser citing the Aboriginal race as a rival/older civilisation/culture to Egypt, Iran etc (which, despite denials, you did in your initial posting). As ancient civilisations go, the Aboriginal nation is a primitive and underdeveloped example. They didn't develop much beyond the level of cavemen simply because there was no need for them to do so. The climate was kind, meaning they could live outdoors much of the time without the need to build permanent shelters. Food was in abundance, so they had no need to develop agriculture. All of which adds up to a very basic hand-to-mouth existence. Not really a culture as we understand it, or as referenced elsewhere by you (Egypt, Persia etc). Your argument would have been far stronger had you cited any number of ancient South American or African civilisations. Let's not forget the Eskimos and native North Americans too, all of whom moved a lot further down the evolutionary path and therefore meet our criteria of 'civilisation' a lot better. As for whether the Aboriginals have a legitimate grievance for past injustices, that's a moot point. We British have a lot to answer for in relation to our colonial past, it's true, but we also did a lot of great things around the world as well. Holding the present generation responsible for the sins of its fathers is a futile and counter-productive pursuit. By that token we may as well still hold a grudge against the Norwegians for all that raping and pillaging carried out by their Viking forefathers. Or, coming more up to date, hands up who owns a German or Japanese car? Systematic genocide, anyone? Flippant comments maybe, but not too far removed from the views of those who decry our history and try to make us feel guilty about our colonial heritage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 by Mojoworking As ancient civilisations go, the Aboriginal nation is a primitive and underdeveloped example So we are agreed then, it is an example of a civilisation. As to it's age - I think we can confidently say, greater than 10,000 years. Older than the Persian civilisation, even if it never achieved the same level of technological advancement. The distinction I made, very clearly in my opening comments: by Phanerothyme In my mind , the Aussies win, with about 50,000 years of history ... Egypt has almost 6000 years of recorded history, compared to China's 5000 and Iran (persia)'s 8000 years of recorded history. Because the indigenous Aussies had an almost wholly oral tradition is not a good enough reason to dispute the complexity or advancement of their ideas or philosophies. It strikes me that precolonial australian civilization was based on a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude, from which we could learn much. Not to mention the sometimes startlingly 'modern' concepts contained in the dreamtime worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.