On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 17:26 +1100, Roger wrote:
History is now history of Asia and aborigines, not history of Australia.
That is appropriate. Remember that all the "First Fleet" people, convicts and authorities, were "boat people" invading an already settled and occupied land, just not a European settlement. Except for those of "Aboriginal" ancestry, we are all either boat people or immigrants, or the descendants of such. Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe. A knowledge of the "local" history is a good thing, although I would also strongly recommend a breadth of global history as a good background. Mark Trickett
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Mark Trickett wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 17:26 +1100, Roger wrote:
History is now history of Asia and aborigines, not history of Australia.
That is appropriate. Remember that all the "First Fleet" people, convicts and authorities, were "boat people" invading an already settled and occupied land, just not a European settlement. Except for those of "Aboriginal" ancestry, we are all either boat people or immigrants, or the descendants of such.
Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe. A knowledge of the "local" history is a good thing, although I would also strongly recommend a breadth of global history as a good background.
I find this talk about "part of Asia" slightly suspicious. First: It's wrong. Australia is a continent, Asia is another one. Secondly: The country is these days mainly populated by people of European ancestry. Most of it's culture has longstanding connection with the European continent and the United Kingdom. We still have political ties towards there, including a Queen in London. You cannot understand the culture of the Australian people if you don't have a clue about European history, culture and religion. Confucius does not help you much to understand Nick Cave, the Bible does. Both points do not say, that we have to restrict ourself to this. Aboriginal culture is part of Australia, and we have strains of migration and influence from Asian countries as well. It helps a lot to understand their background if you meet them. The "Asian thing" here at the moment seems to be very economy-driven. And it concentrates on language which may help but I doubt it is the key. As in most cases, it looks good in short term "to do something" but you tend to have the best results if you not only know "a spot" of something, it helps you most if you know much more, including a lot of "useless knowledge" which comes in handy if you share a cup of tea with a Chinese and can talk about a painting on the wall. So, I am in favour of English literature, whether it is Shakespeare or Patrick White. Writing is starting in primary school, and SMS or bloging do not need years of secondary school education. A good school education does not have to teach you all life skills, we did not have mobiles when I went to school, so I learnt not how to use them. It should set you up for life in a sense that it awakens your curiosity, and give you the skills to learn later in life. This should include "practical things" as well. I learnt how to drill and file and using a jigsaw, and I do not see it as a waste even if I rarely do it these days. Forget the "usefulness" of education. Who knows which countries are "hip" in 30 years. Maybe our kids should learn Nigerian languages because 2040 is the year when the major African economies overtake the declining Chinese economy? Thirty years earlier you would have pushed for Japanese instead of Mandarin, and twenty years ago we had the Tigers so Korean would be good. I find it amazing how most try to predict future without learning from the past. Even if only the fact that future is not the interpolation of the last years into the coming ones. Regards Peter
Peter Ross wrote:
Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe. A knowledge of the "local" history is a good thing, although I would also strongly recommend a breadth of global history as a good background.
I find this talk about "part of Asia" slightly suspicious.
First: It's wrong. Australia is a continent, Asia is another one.
By that argument Indonesia is not part of Asia, so we should still be learning Indonesia as part of "Australian" history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)
Secondly: The country is these days mainly populated by people of European ancestry. Most of it's culture has longstanding connection with the European continent and the United Kingdom. We still have political ties towards there, including a Queen in London.
Cf. Greenland: Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe (specifically Norway and later Denmark) for more than a millennium. I'll buy into your second argument, that there are cultural reasons to study european history. The current economic climate would encourage me to keep at least Chinese history on the syllabus, though.
So, I am in favour of English literature, whether it is Shakespeare or Patrick White. Writing is starting in primary school, and SMS or blogging do not need years of secondary school education.
My objection to English literature upthread was not about people reading the stuff, but about being asked to write essays where your final mark is porportional to how much bullshit you spew about what the author was trying to say, and how closely your assertions match the personal biases of the teacher. Maybe I just had abnormally incompetent English teachers.
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll buy into your second argument, that there are cultural reasons to study european history. The current economic climate would encourage me to keep at least Chinese history on the syllabus, though.
I agree with both points, and moreover the reasons for learning about Asia are not entirely economic. Countries and regions which are economically significant usually become culturally important as well. Earlier in this thread I mentioned social relations and immigration patterns as additional reasons.
My objection to English literature upthread was not about people reading the stuff, but about being asked to write essays where your final mark is porportional to how much bullshit you spew about what the author was trying to say, and how closely your assertions match the personal biases of the teacher.
Maybe I just had abnormally incompetent English teachers.
Incompetent, perhaps; abnormally so... that depends on the average level of competence, about which I'm not optimistic.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
The current economic climate would encourage me to keep at least Chinese history on the syllabus, though.
You could play with hot potatoes instead.. which version do you want? A simple example: http://www.lostlaowai.com/blog/ae/reviews/review-the-new-lonely-planet-china... "The latest edition of Lonely Planet China hit the shelves this summer, a fact you might not have noticed if you actually live in China. That’s because despite the plethora of stores selling LP guides, the China one is hard to come by. LP’s official stance is that Taiwan is not part of the motherland, and so the book is effectively “banned.” I searched all over Beijing to no avail, but one bookstore clerk told me you could buy it in Shanghai but you had to ask for it by name as it was hidden behind the counter. How cloak and dagger!" You can expect a protest note from the Chinese Embassy everytime you write a schoolbook. The easiest way is the Chinese Patriotism course they wanted to introduce in Hong Kong's schools. Bummer, even the Hong Kong people protested against it.. Regards Peter
Peter Ross wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
The current economic climate would encourage me to keep at least Chinese history on the syllabus, though.
You could play with hot potatoes instead.. which version do you want? [ ...] LP’s official stance is that Taiwan is not part of the motherland, and so the book is effectively “banned.”
I don't see how PRC's stance on Kuomintang-controlled ROC has any relevance. That would be like refusing to study Korea because both Koreas claim control over the entire peninsula. Last time I looked, our biggest industry was selling valuable bits of our ground to China. It makes sense to understand the cultural context in which your business partners are operating. UPDATE: apparently I'm wrong -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia says "the total mining sector is 19% of GDP". I blame my .wa.au background. Nevertheless, it also cites "Main export partners China 27.4%, Japan 19.2%, South Korea 8.9%, India 5.8% (2011)", so I think my argument still holds.
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Peter Ross wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
The current economic climate would encourage me to keep at least Chinese history on the syllabus, though.
You could play with hot potatoes instead.. which version do you want? [ ...] LP’s official stance is that Taiwan is not part of the motherland, and so the book is effectively “banned.”
I don't see how PRC's stance on Kuomintang-controlled ROC has any relevance. That would be like refusing to study Korea because both Koreas claim control over the entire peninsula.
Good luck writing the schoolbook then;-) Honestly, there are as many ways to step of the toes of an Chinese embassy official as you write sentences in the book. Taiwan, Mao, Tibet, Dalai Lama, the New Frontier, the Uighurs, languages vs. dialects.. you better don't mention any of them.
"Main export partners China 27.4%, Japan 19.2%, South Korea 8.9%, India 5.8% (2011)"
That's one reason we take every coughing from China more seriously;-) This mail may be already enough to deny me visa next time I have to go there. Who knows? I don't think we should ignore China and Chinese culture and history. But we also should not pretend that it is easy to deal with them, and all just business as usual. It is not. Just google for some Australian businesspeople imprisoned in China. Should be mandatory reading for everyone having big plans over there. Regards Peter
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, Peter Ross wrote:
Just google for some Australian businesspeople imprisoned in China. Should be mandatory reading for everyone having big plans over there.
This goes so far that our own government is helping to cover up arrests of businesspeople in China for up two two years: http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-chinese-road-to-ruin-and-prison-201211... Here a bit of background. http://www.theage.com.au/world/pressure-mounts-on-carr-over-china-rights-abu... BTW: Please refrain from personal attacks on this list. Some weekend mails were not really pleasant reading, and I don't think it is necessary. [I don't want to blame anyone, and I am not perfect either.] Thank you Peter
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
First: It's wrong. Australia is a continent, Asia is another one.
http://tinyurl.com/a7h94n7 Sociological Images has a post about the continents as social constructs. Asia isn't a continent by any measure of geography, it's part of the same land mass as Europe. You might call "Eurasia" a continent, but then we get to the issue of why the history of countries such as the UK, France, and Germany, has traditionally been prioritised over the history of countries such as India, China, Vietnam, and Korea. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Tue, Nov 20th, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Mark Trickett <marktrickett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 17:26 +1100, Roger wrote:
History is now history of Asia and aborigines, not history of Australia.
That is appropriate. Remember that all the "First Fleet" people, convicts and authorities, were "boat people" invading an already settled and occupied land, just not a European settlement. Except for those of "Aboriginal" ancestry, we are all either boat people or immigrants, or the descendants of such.
Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe. A knowledge of the "local" history is a good thing, although I would also strongly recommend a breadth of global history as a good background.
Mark Trickett
Who was there before the aborigines? Maybe they were harvested by aliens. Did one tribe settle Australia, followed by more boat people? Did it all happen when the continents were joined? How did a thousand different tribes/clans come about? Also this business about 'invasion of an already settled land' I find is purely emotive. Is there some date when this became unethical? If it has always been unethical, winding back and seeking reparation is going to interesting everywhere else in the world let alone the current invasions. The statement 'Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe' I regard as nonsense, if you follow that line of reasoning, you would argue that China is on the same continent as Europe so if you follow the geographical links we're all Europeans. In these days of fast transport and communications, I really can't see the usefulness of 'geographic' links. I don't see African countries saying they're a part of Arab or European regions and they're joined by land. Why don't we try getting an identity before we start saying of whom we are a part? Lu
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, luber@alphalink.com.au wrote:
Who was there before the aborigines? Maybe they were harvested by aliens. Did one tribe settle Australia, followed by more boat people? Did it all happen when the continents were joined? How did a thousand different tribes/clans come about? Also this business about 'invasion of an already settled land' I find is purely emotive. Is there some date when this became unethical? If it has always been unethical, winding back and seeking reparation is going to interesting everywhere else in the world let alone the current invasions.
In recent centuries there have been a series of agreements banning genocide, guaranteeing decent treatment of prisoners of war, etc. The standards that the British government had agreed to prior to colonising Australia prohibited treating people the way they treated Aboriginies, they just didn't regard Aboriginies as people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation Read about the Stolen Generations. That sort of thing is unethical by any set of ethical standards apart from those which are actively racist.
The statement 'Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe' I regard as nonsense, if you follow that line of reasoning, you would argue that China is on the same continent as Europe so if you follow the geographical links we're all Europeans. In these days of fast transport and communications, I really can't see the usefulness of 'geographic' links. I don't see African countries saying they're a part of Arab or European regions and they're joined by land.
In fact the EU has existed for a long time and there are a variety of trade organisations linking Arabian countries. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi all,
The standards that the British government had agreed to prior to colonising Australia prohibited treating people the way they treated Aboriginies, they just didn't regard Aboriginies as people.
Loopholes are =so= convenient... The USA refused to declare war on Vietnam, therefore they felt UNbound to the Geneva Convention. So they used Napalm, shotguns, hollow-point bullets, Agent Orange, torture, summary execution and a wide range of other prohibited weapons and tactics.
Read about the Stolen Generations. That sort of thing is unethical by any set of ethical standards apart from those which are actively racist.
Sorry, but that statement strikes me as being directly at odds with substantial empirical evidence. Many families adopted those children, loved them, and strived to raise them as equals to their own children. There were true beliefs by many at the time that pure Aboriginal races and cultures were unlikely to survive in the long term. The survival rate of forcibly removed Aboriginal children was far greater than their cohorts who remained in traditional settings. In spite of the numerous accounts of sexual/physical/psychological abuse in foster homes and orphanages, I understand it was still significantly better for them (overall) than if they had not been removed. I myself strive to not speak out on a subject, or take a passionate stance on one, until after I've adequately studied all major sides of it. But that's probably because I'm a Mensan with multiple and diverse degrees. Carl
On 24/11/2012 23:37, Carl Turney wrote: [...]
Loopholes are =so= convenient... The USA refused to declare war on Vietnam, therefore they felt UNbound to the Geneva Convention. So they used Napalm, shotguns, hollow-point bullets, [...]
Not arguing for or against US conduct in Vietnam, but ... - You probably mean the Hague convention. - Napalm was not prohibited. - Shotguns were not prohibited - Hollow-points were not issued [1]. [1]Expanding ammunition may have been (illegally) used by individuals but AFAICT was not issued through the supply chain. There are always atrocities in war and they are never justified, but there's no reason to make up stuff: the reality is bad enough. Anders.
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
Read about the Stolen Generations. That sort of thing is unethical by any set of ethical standards apart from those which are actively racist.
Sorry, but that statement strikes me as being directly at odds with substantial empirical evidence. Many families adopted those children, loved them, and strived to raise them as equals to their own children.
That is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether children should be forcibly removed from parents who care for them well.
There were true beliefs by many at the time that pure Aboriginal races and cultures were unlikely to survive in the long term.
If such beliefs are relevant to the matter then it's clear evidence of racism.
The survival rate of forcibly removed Aboriginal children was far greater than their cohorts who remained in traditional settings.
The issue is not the overall survival rate but whether children were removed from safe family environments for no good reason. If the number of children moved from unsafe environments to safe environments exceeds the number of children moved from safe environments to unsafe environments then that's not an argument for moving all children! The correct thing to do is to only move children who are in unsafe environments.
In spite of the numerous accounts of sexual/physical/psychological abuse in foster homes and orphanages, I understand it was still significantly better for them (overall) than if they had not been removed.
The issue is not whether the damage that was done to the entire Aboriginal population by removing children from their families was worse than the damage that would have been done if no child had ever been removed from abusive parents. The issue is whether all children should be removed from their parents in a supposed effort to stop abuse. There is also the issue of whether there are other interventions that could be done to improve things which didn't involve removing children from their parents.
I myself strive to not speak out on a subject, or take a passionate stance on one, until after I've adequately studied all major sides of it.
That's a good idea, why don't you do that.
But that's probably because I'm a Mensan with multiple and diverse degrees.
Thanks for demonstrating that being a Mensan is irrelevant to any ability to do anything other than logic puzzles. Consider what abilities are required to be successful in the FOSS community before trying to boast about such things. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi, Russell Coker replied...
The issue is not the overall survival rate but whether children were removed from safe family environments for no good reason.
Hmm, "no good reason". I personally consider saving as many children's lives as possible, using the most effective remedies known of at the time, as being a fairly good reason. Hmm, "safe family environments". Given that there were a limited number of adoptive families and orphanages at the time, I'd be extremely surprised if most of those who managed those programs didn't attempt to prioritise high-risk-cases on some then-recognised criteria. But the stridency of your response indicated that you saw some flaw in my assumptions. So I guess "they were all a pack of filthy racists, hell-bent on eradicating the Aboriginal People" must be much more logically patent and better-supported by the body of evidence.
The issue is not whether the damage that was done to the entire Aboriginal population by removing children from their families was worse than the damage that would have been done if no child had ever been removed from abusive parents.
Thank you for rephrasing my statement to its exact opposite, and then discounting it as irrelevant. Quite entertaining. My apologies... I had NO idea that you (or any other individual or group) had been empowered with deciding what is or isn't an issue to consider when addressing one of the most emotionally-charged and divisive topics of today's Australia.
There is also the issue of whether there are other interventions that could be done to improve things which didn't involve removing children from their parents.
How evil and sadistic of our elders, 50-100 years ago (?), to not have accurately predicted and employed modern-day preferred social service solutions. Thank you for the inspiration and new standards to follow. I wonder what travesties of justice we're =currently= practising, due to our inability to fully predict the intricacies of our (then mature) (grand)children's generation? Perhaps contemporary science fiction should guide our lawmakers. I wonder if Jules Verne or H. G. Wells could have similarly taught our ancestors how to "get it right"? To this very day, they're lauded for their brilliant insights. Maybe the cutting-edge psychologists of their days, like Jung, Adler, or Spock (not HIM, the other one)? Oops. Now-a-days even =they= are seen as quaint and ham-fisted buffoons by most modern mental health professionals. Guide us, please.
Consider what abilities are required to be successful in the FOSS community before trying to boast about such things.
It's true, as a mere (l)user in the FOSS community, I'm ill-equipped to comment in this forum on The Stolen Generation. My general intelligence, childhood of psychological abuse, Masters in Public Policy, and 59-year lifetime as the member of minorities much smaller than the Aboriginal one, are useless. I'll stop commenting on this thread, now. Carl
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
The issue is not the overall survival rate but whether children were removed from safe family environments for no good reason.
Hmm, "no good reason". I personally consider saving as many children's lives as possible, using the most effective remedies known of at the time, as being a fairly good reason.
Removing children from safe environments is not "saving lives", it's recklessly putting their lives at risk given the possibilities of orphanages etc not working out well.
So I guess "they were all a pack of filthy racists, hell-bent on eradicating the Aboriginal People" must be much more logically patent and better-supported by the body of evidence.
It was a racially based policy.
In spite of the numerous accounts of sexual/physical/psychological abuse in foster homes and orphanages, I understand it was still significantly better for them (overall) than if they had not been removed.
The issue is not whether the damage that was done to the entire Aboriginal population by removing children from their families was worse than the damage that would have been done if no child had ever been removed from abusive parents.
Thank you for rephrasing my statement to its exact opposite, and then discounting it as irrelevant. Quite entertaining.
That is a false claim, I've pasted in your original text to keep the context. Feel free to address my point if you wish, but don't just delete your original claim and make stuff up.
My apologies... I had NO idea that you (or any other individual or group) had been empowered with deciding what is or isn't an issue to consider when addressing one of the most emotionally-charged and divisive topics of today's Australia.
I have the same right to make such decisions as you do. If you were less arrogant you would realise it.
There is also the issue of whether there are other interventions that could be done to improve things which didn't involve removing children from their parents.
How evil and sadistic of our elders, 50-100 years ago (?), to not have accurately predicted and employed modern-day preferred social service solutions. Thank you for the inspiration and new standards to follow.
I merely believe that they should have treated everyone equally regardless of skin colour. I don't think I'm being at all unreasonable.
But that's probably because I'm a Mensan with multiple and diverse degrees.
Consider what abilities are required to be successful in the FOSS community before trying to boast about such things.
It's true, as a mere (l)user in the FOSS community, I'm ill-equipped to comment in this forum on The Stolen Generation. My general intelligence,
I was obviously too subtle. I disagree with your arrogance. You seem to think that being in the top 2% according to an IQ test makes you special in some way. Around here that's not the case at all. Anyone who is good enough at computer programming to be well regarded for it in the FOSS community will make that grade easily. Your implication that I might be impressed by Mensa membership is insulting.
childhood of psychological abuse, Masters in Public Policy, and 59-year lifetime as the member of minorities much smaller than the Aboriginal one, are useless.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Oppression_Olympics In discussions about treatment of minority groups that's referred to as Oppression Olympics. The above URL is one of many addressing it, I suggest you do a Google search and read a few others too. Being a member of a minority group can help give you a better insight on the disadvantages that other groups have. But that's not guaranteed. Sometimes members of minority groups are epically unsympathetic to members of other groups. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On 21 November 2012 10:44, <luber@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Who was there before the aborigines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man Note the quote "Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA with that of ancient and modern Aborigines has indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian Aborigines. The results indicated that Mungo Man is an extinct subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor of contemporary humans." This lead to wild speculation that maybe the Aborigines invaded Australia some time in the past. Research was stopped though, because the Aborigine's didn't want their dead ancestors be subjected to scientific tests, and the government(?) agreed to release the remains. As such, the claims remain controversial. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
luber@alphalink.com.au wrote:
If it has always been unethical, winding back and seeking reparation is going to interesting everywhere else in the world let alone the current invasions.
Correct. There was a news report on 3KND about various indigenous groups getting together in Canada to share experiences. The ads on that station are also instructive -- many of them urge listeners to e.g. eat vegetables, and not smoke and drink while pregnant. That such ads are necessary strongly suggests to me that Aboriginal communities are still getting shafted dry and hard. A thirty second fact check turns up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title#History_by_jurisdiction which shows this phenomenon is not Australocentric. Perhaps we don't see it in the papers because everyone sweeps it under the rug like us.
I don't see African countries saying they're a part of Arab or European regions [...]
Historically, some of them were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png I'm assuming by "Arab" you mean the Arabian peninsula, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world#Standard_territorial_definition the Arab peoples include most of northern Africa.
participants (9)
-
Anders Holmstrom -
Brian May -
Carl Turney -
Jason White -
luber＠alphalink.com.au -
Mark Trickett -
Peter Ross -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck