Are Aboriginals and Aboriginal culture of any benefit to the Australian society?

I witnessed several discussions about Aboriginals here at the board. For I am not familiar with the topic I would like to have an idea of how popular they are in Australia.

 

The Sami people in Norway, Sweden and Finland have been the subject of discrimination and abuse by the dominant cultures for centuries and Aboriginal Australians and British settlers also have had difficult relations since Australia was first colonised two centuries ago. Unlike the Maori people in New Zealand who enjoy certain indigenous land rights endowed by the British, Aboriginal Australians have not developed a culture sophisticated enough to counter European colonisation and they simply moved further inland when Europeans settled in coastal areas. Australia is a vast continent and there is enough room for two cultures to coexist and Aboriginal Australians are largely confined to their reserves.

 

I am not sure if popular is the word, but many Australians have a deep respect for Aboriginals and their culture. Life can be seen in a different light when you encounter a culture that dates before the last ice age

 

Some deceitfully tell the Australian people they want to return to an ancient Aboriginal traditional way of life. If you research traditional Aboriginal lifestyles and culture, it would indicate that the Aboriginal people cared & protected the land, and never sold or leased land. I find it amusing how the Australian people are allowing the Aboriginal people to be so hypocritical by saying they want to return to a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle, which represents them caring and protecting the land they were given, and suddenly they give up thier trditional Aboriginal lifestyle of protecting the land, and lease it to mining companies when they came around shaking their money purse.

Besides the stolen generation, which can also be linked to white Australian single women in the same era having their children stolen from them, the Australian people have not done anything to the Aboriginal people at all. All the claims by Aboriginals of being hunted, killed and the land being taken from them should be directed to the British, not the Australians, as the vast majority of Australians came here as convicts and endentured serfs themselves. Unfortunately, the Australians are a more easy target and soft touch than the British.

Aboriginal are not confined to reserves, some elected to live independently in remote outback communities away and seperate from Australian communities. At the begining, these independent Aboriginal communities were given $billions in funding to support modern infrustructure of housing, schools, shops, and medical centres. After a few decades of independent living away and seperate from Australian society, these communities turned into slums, because the people had no respect for what they were given, and now that everything has fallen apart, they have the audacity to blame the Australian people for their own neglect.

Popular? They are as popular as a headache.

 

What tha ? Where you read this stuff brudder?

 

Unfinished Empire: the Global Expansion of Britain by John Darwin

Allen Lane, 496pp, £25

Coming relatively late to imperialism, the British found a useful trail that had already been blazed by the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch, who had explored the trade routes and supplied much of the apparatus of empire that Britain went on to perfect (and very often purloin altogether through her naval superiority). Thereafter every invention in the particularly inventive Victorian age was put to use, and in particular, as Darwin shows, “railways turned the British, hitherto mainly a sea power, into a land and sea power, a huge increase in capacity”. The author’s deep familiarity with all the key sources of this vast subject allows him to pluck examples for his arguments from across the centuries and continents, being as at home with Lord Salisbury’s South African policies, say, as with Winston Churchill’s unfortunate prediction of December 1924: “Why should there be a war with Japan? I do not believe there is the slightest chance of it in my lifetime.” Britain’s pluralistic society – which always included a deeply anti-imperialist minority – her religious tolerance, her flexible political system, her open markets, free-trade policies and ever more sophisticated financial instruments, as well as the City and docklands of London itself, meant that she was perfectly adapted to run an empire that Darwin sees as “less a recognisable bloc with borders and limits than a vast archipelago, strewn across the world”. Some possessions were jewels, while others were “minnows acquired for no discernible reason but hard to abandon”. It was also vital that no fewer than 19 million Britons were willing to emigrate between 1815 and 1930, twice as many as from any other part of Europe. (The Italians came next with nine million, but most of them wound up in America.) On top of the directly ruled jewels and minnows, Britain also enjoyed hegemony over a widespread informal empire in places which were important to her, among them Argentina, Uruguay and Egypt. This “invisible” empire formed the template for the kind of influence that the United States has enjoyed in many places since 1945. Nor did Britain’s empire fundamentally alter her; Darwin takes issue with those historians who argue that Britain was “constituted by empire”, which he calls “a modish but vacuous expression”. Because Britain had been a strong, well-funded fiscal-military state long before acquiring an empire beyond Europe, she was able to enter her post-imperial phase without suffering any collective national mental breakdown. For Britain, the Empire was “only a phase, an exceptional moment”. Darwin is unsparing about the violence and the failures; it’s good to see the Attlee ministry and its viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, rightfully blamed for “at least one million” deaths in the Partition of India, rather than the fraction of that figure often attributed to that terrible period. Best of all, though, is the thought that Darwin’s book might at long last herald the victory of the post-Marxist phase of imperial historiography, and not a moment too soon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/9573629/Unfinished-Empire-by-John-Darwin-review.html

 

We know the history my friend. All too well. What the textbooks don't account for is the mental debilitating of an entire race. This is something the Poms have not experienced for a fair few centuries, as they were one of the main transgressors and part of the disintegration of indigenous lifestyles. Some would argue the worst, however the stories of what the Dutch, Spaniards, and French got up to seem as bad to me.

Enough of what has past and can not be changed and back to the OP.

Aboriginal culture is rich with mythical stories and life lessons. I for one love them, and some of the morals delivered in these stories are as pertinent now as they ever have been. Unfortunately the younger Aborigines are ambivalent toward them. It is hard to blame them as now more than ever before there seems a pressure to fit in, be the same. This is the same for whitefella kids too. In fact I am seeing less a gap between Blackfella and Whitefella kids everyday, as they try and put the prejudice of their parents behind them( both sides).

Societal factors play a major part in how the humble Aborigine is perceived. Alcohol and substance abuse is of major concern, as with a lot of disenfranchised indigenous peoples around the globe. Don't get me wrong, history can explain why they have arrived at this point, however it can no longer be used as an excuse to stay there. I am confident that things are changing as more and more Aboriginals are seeking higher learning and then using their knowledge to further their peoples integration into a ever changing modern world. However tough love is now needed, and not by the whitey's, but by our own people. If you rely on someone else to give you a ride to the shop, you must take their journey to get to your destination. It is time we drive ourselves as proud Australians.

 

In the last town we lived we had some families around, quite nice actually. A couple of them were living on the dole, which for some Caucasians is a problem. Not that it would be the same problem if their own were living on the dole. I personally never had a problem with them....

Are they popular? That's a difficult one, most people I know (white Aussies) would rather say no, there are many problems related to them.

I think the white world with all our greed, western standards and high expectations in general and their world don't really mix.

So if you randomly ask Australians what they think about the true owners/keepers of the land (I am talking of true ownership, not that piece of paper called *title*), you will receive a devastating reply (if they are honest).

Unfortunately we have plenty of bogans and rednecks around, as shown in this thread, who cannot see anything positive in the coexistence of our two cultures.

I personally think that people need a believe (not necessarily in terms of religion) or some sort of sense in their life's, in order to make something out of it. Trying to make good in pouring money over their destroyed world with little to look out for won't fix the problem.

But admittingly it is a very difficult subject. If you are living in one of our metropolitan cities, you might meet plenty of people, who stand up for them. But living on the land, it is more of a different story, it really can be both ways...

Regards

 

The basic psychology of any species survival is to progress and advance, not to revert backwards, and some Aboriginal people want to revert backwards to an ancient traditional lifestyle of being hunter gatherers. The Aboriginal philosophy of wanting to go backwards rather than forwards is what's causing this mess within our duel societies.


There are some Aboriginal people who want to be part of Australia's progressive modern future, but there are others who want to revert backwards, and this constant conflict of ideas within the Aboriginal people themsleves is the recourse for when the Australian people have to deal with 200 - 300 different Aboriginal tribes with different ideas and agendas.

Maybe its not Australians that are holding the Aboriginal people back, but its the Aboriginal people themselves, by not displaying any unity as a combined people.

Has anyone actually witnessed the hatred and fights that happen between different Aboriginal tribes and communities? They are at war with themselves more than they are at war with white Australians, and this cannot be a good thing for a people who is always preaching they want reconciliation and harmony - well try doing between yourselves first.

 

I think you have nailed it M2. Different demographics and circumstances brings a different response. I think most Aussies are very fair minded, but there is still an area of the unknown on both sides, which brings distrust. Aussies on the whole are happy to give anyone a fair go IMO but have been let down and left frustrated with the seeming lack of initiative. No one begrudges a successful aborigine but the hardcore racists in the nazi mould.

Traditional looking aborigines on the east coast are popular and initially bring a positive response due to the rarity but in their homelands I think the story might be a little different.

 

I think you have had a pretty good coverage here.

Slippery's post is excellent, maybe biased but in a different way to other biased views here which is good it balances things out. Catt's view is an informed and educated response, as is TV and others.

You may not be aware, others here though know that I am in a relationship with an Aboriginal woman. As a 60 year old, very white, white man, it has been a real eye opener. I have been both pleased and disgusted with my fellow whites, as has my partner about her people.

We say to them, "Get over it", and they (Aboriginal people) will, they will have to, but a fair amount of the damage is irreversible.

I remember a few years back, the Returned and Services League of Australia (often abbreviated to RSL) had bans against the Australian Defense Forces using vehicles manufactured in Japan due to Japan's atrocities committed against Australian Servicemen during WW2. This ban remained in force for decades until most of those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese had passed away. But this happened during wartime, mainly to soldiers.

We too committed atrocities against the native inhabitants of Australia, most of this happened decades ago, but it wasn't until the 60's that we even classed them as human, and only this century did we admit what we done, and appologise.

A deliberate system was put in place by the government to disenfranchise the Aboriginal people, to justify our settling of their homeland without compensation or even recognition of it's traditional owners was very successful. The majority of men were so disenfranchised that drugs and alcohol was used to blunt their pain. This, especially alcohol abuse was in a way encouraged, with some rural workers being paid in alcohol and later government welfare payments being issued from an alcohol supply store in one case in the Northern Territory.

The stolen generation was real, and it did happen to whites as well, I know, I was one (white) whilst my partner was one too (Aboriginal). The reasons, although similar, were not the same.

Over all we have nothing to be proud of about our historical treatment of these human beings. If you break a glass it takes only microseconds, but to glue it back together again takes time, and it will never be as it was, there will always be marks to show where it shattered.

One Mob and Generation One are two ways that they, Aboriginal people are trying to close the gaps.
world-watches-in-envy-at-this-one-mob-mentality

I know, as do most Aboriginals, that to be a force, they need to get together.

 

Still waiting for those links. I'm curious to see if you have enough cases to properly justify your seemingly broad generalisations.

This isn't particularly surprising if you think about it.. Those that want to revert to a more traditional lifestyle more than likely hold a very traditional worldview which would not necessarily see the development and domination of western society as being beneficial or a desirable progression.

 

There are no REAL links

Exactly......

 

There is enough information on the net for you to gather your own research into Aboriginal traditional lifestyles and Aboriginal communities leasing land to mining companies to make a comparative decision.

Have you ever though how difficult it is allowing small groups of people to live independent liefstyles without them living within the same parameters as everyone else in the same country? I believe the Australian people have been more than generous to the Aboriginal people by financially supporting them to live in remote outback communities. Unfortunately, when the Aboriginal people turn these communities into slums through self-independence and self-rule, they accuse the Australian people decades later of abandoning them and letting them die. Is it really our fault that some of these people trashed the tens of $billions that was given in social support, and now accuse us for not helping them?

I don't have a problem with some Aboriginal people wanting to return to a traditional lifestyle, but if they want to return to these lifestyles, then they should publicly tell the Australian people and legally address the UN by stating this is "their" decision, and what they want, and they will not hold the Australian government or the Australian people socially or financially responsible in the future, if there lifestyles fail.

 

I told you there was no links, there are no links to CD's imagination (thank God)

CD, you are the smart one here, tell me how the Aborigines from the Nambucca Valley could return to THEIR traditional lifestyle?

Or is the great wise one suggesting we pack them up and send them to Arnhem Land, the traditional land of a small percentage of Aboriginal people?

 

The same way I could return to my ancestors traditional lifestyle. We are all in the same boat, it is called the march of history.

 

You are so simplistic it borders on dumb....just saying?

 

For the human species to survive, we need to start heading towards the stars, not reverting back to a cave-man mentality of being hunter gatherers.

We should be a two planet species by now, with the technology we possess.

Whats the point in squandering more $billions in helping small groups of people keep us tied to an antiquated philosophy, because they are too scared to move on.

Cave-man mentality = no benefit to Australian society.

 

Exactly, which is why CD saying they can return to their traditional lifestyles is stupid.

 

Here you go, its only 190 trillion kilometers, inbox me when you get there. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c

 

Its a bit weird,
but for your normal political mindset which you express on this forum, being an extreme right winger on most subjects (and an Abbott's follower) to now tell us that you are the one who believes in progress and being forward orientated just beggars belief.....

 

Abbott, the man's name is Tony Abbott, there is no 's' on the end. For God's sake catter, get it right.

 

I see you racist quality also expands to politicial agenda. I am quite amused how you could assume CD is "an Abbott follower" from his posts. BUT I assume it is because you just think the same as TV, if it not with you it must be anything you want to name it...

 

I don't know of anybody who has a deep respect for Aboriginal culture, a culture that allows the rampant sexual exploitation of children, and alcoholism, well beyond that occurring in the NON Aboriginal community. And they still moan and groan, whilst grabbing and demanding endless welfare.

It was a very stagnant culture that remained deep in the mire of the past that was jolted from its deep slumber by the advent of Western civilisation.

 

Australia has a culture ? oh come on