[Swagman]

Now you seem to be saying that it is completely natural for humans to try and eradicate the cultures of others, and if you are saying that, are you also saying that it is completely natural for a modern liberal democracy to try and eradicate the culture of the people whose land they are currently living on?

I'm saying that it is a completely natural process for individuals (particularly the younger generations) to gravitate towards a 'culture' that they are more comfortable with (makes their life easier to live) and therefore that more popular culture will dominate whilst the less popular ones decline.

The members of the British tribes, over time, gravitated towards the Roman culture and became 'Romanised' much in the same way as (IMO) the American Indians have done in Canada & the USA and just about every indigenous population world wide have. There will always be conservative individuals that choose to hang on to their traditional culture and this is evidenced everywhere as well and this BTW is one of the main reasons behind the 'gap' between indigenous and non-indigenous health / education demographics.

However, the devil is in the details, and there is the fact that empires from millenia ago are not comparable to modern liberal democracies that champion things like rule of law and equality.

...and over the top political correctness

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm saying that it is a completely natural process for individuals (particularly the younger generations) to gravitate towards a 'culture' that they are more comfortable with (makes their life easier to live) and therefore that more popular culture will dominate whilst the less popular ones decline.

But we cannot know if this is natural and organic, or if it is a legacy of the Stolen Generations. The whole point of the Stolen Generations was that the Australian gov't was trying to eradicate Aboriginal culture and break the pattern of teaching culture by separating children from their parents.

I also agree that non-Aboriginal Australian culture makes life easier to live. This is largely due to the fact that it is this culture that claims the wealth of Australia, including its natural resources. This is despite the fact that the land actually belongs to the Aborigines.

In either case, I don't really see it as organic or natural. I see it as the direct effect of colonialism by gov'ts who are trying to get rid of the real owners of the land.

The members of the British tribes, over time, gravitated towards the Roman culture and became 'Romanised' much in the same way as (IMO) the American Indians have done in Canada & the USA and just about every indigenous population world wide have. There will always be conservative individuals that choose to hang on to their traditional culture and this is evidenced everywhere as well and this BTW is one of the main reasons behind the 'gap' between indigenous and non-indigenous health / education demographics.

I don't think this is historically accurate.

For one thing, indigenous groups in the Americas also went through gov't programs designed to wipe out the indigenous cultures. Thus, my previous point about it being an unnatural or inorganic process also applies.

In fact, the only place where it might have been as organic as you claim is when the Celtic tribes of prehistorical Britain were assimilated into Roman or Saxon cultures.

...and over the top political correctness

Do you think that recognising the misdeeds of Australia's colonial past (recent and otherwise) is over the top?

[Swagman]

The whole point of the Stolen Generations was that the Australian gov't was trying to eradicate Aboriginal culture and break the pattern of teaching culture by separating children from their parents.

No way. I strongly disagree with that comment. The whole point was to protect children who were deemed to be at risk.

If the "whole point" of the policy was eradication of culture then the Govt would have sent the army in to eradicate or pen people up in concentration camps.

You keep mentioning the "Closing the Gap" policy. The 'GAP' is there NOT because education and health services are being denied to indigenous folk but because these services are refused or ignored by the indigenous folk as they choose to stick to their traditional ways.

Is providing health and education services an example of culture eradication, and an example of racism?

[GandalfTheGrey]

The whole point was to protect children who were deemed to be at risk.

If by "at risk" you mean they were at risk of becoming aboriginal - then sure, the children were well protected.

But I'm pretty sure there is a mountain of evidence that indicates aboriginal kids were not taken on the basis of bad parenting, but on the basis of wanting to make them white (and of course believing that was in their best interests - even while they tore them away from their screaming mothers).

[GandalfTheGrey]

Its exceedingly easy to debunk Swag's nonsense about "protecting" children:

In NSW:

In 1915, in New South Wales, the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 gave the Aborigines' Protection Board authority to remove Aboriginal children "without having to establish in court that they were neglected"

In South Australia:

In 1911, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, William Garnet South, reportedly "lobbied for the power to remove Aboriginal children without a court hearing because the courts sometimes refused to accept that the children were neglected or destitute". South argued that "all children of mixed descent should be treated as neglected".[42] His lobbying reportedly played a part in the enactment of the Aborigines Act 1911; this made him the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child in South Australia, including so-called "half-castes"

according to the bringing them home report:

The report discovered that removed children were, in most cases, placed into institutional facilities operated by religious or charitable organisations, although a significant number, particularly females, were "fostered" out. Children taken to such places were frequently punished if caught speaking local indigenous languages, and the intention was specifically to prevent them being socialised in Aboriginal cultures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

[Swagman]

In 1915, in New South Wales, the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 gave the Aborigines' Protection Board authority to remove Aboriginal children "without having to establish in court that they were neglected"

What's the name of the Act quoted GTG?

Shouldn't it have been called the 'Eradication of culture' Act if that was indeed its main purpose?

Many mixed race children were shunned by both Aboriginals & non-Aboriginals. That was the point of the Acts. The mixed race children were made wards of the State for their welfare.

[layman]

The British tribes were wiped out completely or assimilated by the Romans and/or the Anglo Saxons so their treatment was at least on a par.

Not true by any stretch though to be fair this was commonly thought in early 20th century textbooks.

Genetics actually show us that it is bullshit though. The ruling classes were taken over but there was no mass genocide of the ancient britons. They merged with the invading jutes, saxons, vikings, normans etc.

Hard evidence is pretty scarse from this 'Dark age' but mass extinction theory actually doent make much sense. Humans are a valuable resource - you generally dont wipe them out - you conquer them and make them work for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

No way. I strongly disagree with that comment. The whole point was to protect children who were deemed to be at risk.

That was the rationale. You see, they didn't want to destroy the Aborigines, or even harm them. They just wanted them to behave and live and look exactly like white people. Because "white people are just so much more awesome and better and never hurt children, not like those nasty darkies".

They honestly thought they were doing the Aboriginals a favour by removing the children from their families and raising them in a non-Aboriginal culture.

There is also the issue of the Australian legislature drafting a special law allowing Aboriginal children to be taken away even if there was no evidence of risk. How do you reconcile that fact with the claim that the children were taken because they were at risk?

If the "whole point" of the policy was eradication of culture then the Govt would have sent the army in to eradicate or pen people up in concentration camps.

While that would also be a good strategy (perhaps a better one) for eradicating a culture, the Australians would have also ended up killing many innocent people in a concentration camp style much like the Nazis did. They would then have been unable to maintain the rationale that they were helping Aboriginal people.

You keep mentioning the "Closing the Gap" policy. The 'GAP' is there NOT because education and health services are being denied to indigenous folk but because these services are refused or ignored by the indigenous folk as they choose to stick to their traditional ways.

I don't think that is the case. If it were the case, then those Aboriginals who live in non-remote areas, i.e. urban Aboriginals who are not living traditionally due to the fact that they are in an urban context, would not experience the same gap in health outcomes as their traditional brethren, yet they do.

Since the gap occurs among Aboriginals from all walks of life (not just traditional ones), traditional lifestyle cannot be a significant factor.

Also:

https://ama.com.au/media/time-remove-ba ... ity-health

Is providing health and education services an example of culture eradication, and an example of racism?

It can be.

For example, one similarity between the Stolen Generations and the Indian Residential School system is that both systems involved raising the children in schools where they were taught settler culture. And again, this was an effort to eradicate Aboriginal culture by replacing it with settler culture.

[Swagman]

The British tribes were wiped out completely or assimilated by the Romans and/or the Anglo Saxons so their treatment was at least on a par.

Not true by any stretch though to be fair this was commonly thought in early 20th century textbooks.

I did say "or assimilated".

Genetics actually show us that it is bullshit though. The ruling classes were taken over but there was no mass genocide of the ancient britons. They merged with the invading jutes, saxons, vikings, normans etc.

Which is assimilation.

Hard evidence is pretty scarse from this 'Dark age' but mass extinction theory actually doent make much sense. Humans are a valuable resource - you generally dont wipe them out - you conquer them and make them work for you.

The discussion was around the extinction of culture rather than people. The British tribes and their 'culture' vanished over time for many of the reasons you mentioned and not really by a determined genocide by the Romans and those that came behind them. It is historical fact though that there were rebellions by the british tribes that were savagely put down. The Iceni and Boudicea rebellion is one of the more famous.

There were Saxon rebellions against the Normans (Hereward the Wake comes to mind) which is of particular interest to me as my paternal family line origininates from this area

I agree that modern day DNA investigations reveal the gradual merging of many races in the UK which was the point I was making about Aboriginal culture here in Australia. The younger generations will likely gravitate towards the culture of modern Australia and away from the traditional aboriginal hunter gatherer type culture. It's not being forced upon them as is being suggested by my opposing posters who are branding me racist for even attempting to discuss it.

[redcarpet]

Part of the problem is no doubt ignorance about the conditions of the detention centres &
that seeking asylum is a right and there's no such thing as an asylum seeker trespassing.

[foxdemon]

It's not being forced upon them as is being suggested by my opposing posters who are branding me racist for even attempting to discuss it.

One reason your posts might come across as the beliefs of a racist is that you have avoided answering a question that would clarify the situation. Here it is again (for the third time):


"Swagman, would you hold a different view if the boat people were of European background?"


An answer to this question will clear up all those allegations of racism (one way or the other).

[anarchist23]

Swagman.The majority of Australians live in the suburbs,not in the outback and this leads to a suburban mentality.Not a multicultural mentality.

[Swagman]

"Swagman, would you hold a different view if the boat people were of European background?"

No

[foxdemon]

No

OK, so if a bunch of Jewish refugees reached the boarder, fleeing Nazi persecution (as happened in WWII on the Swiss boarder), you'd turn them around and send them back, even though they would be confined to concentration camps and many would be killed. Am I reading you correctly?

[Swagman]

OK, so if a bunch of Jewish refugees reached the boarder, fleeing Nazi persecution (as happened in WWII on the Swiss boarder), you'd turn them around and send them back, even though they would be confined to concentration camps and many would be killed. Am I reading you correctly?

You've had your finger on the trigger waiting for that one. Your anachronistic scenario is one of the main reasons the refugee convention was signed.

As they are 'refugees' they would be protected accordingly.

[redcarpet]

Only on paper. The Refugee Convention can be violated, as Australia is.

They'd be arrested and sent to 'detention centres' for 'illegally' entering Australia
and 'country hopping', as if that's illegal for asylum seekers, which it is not.

[Swagman]

Only on paper. The Refugee Convention can be violated, as Australia is.

They'd be arrested and sent to 'detention centres' for 'illegally' entering Australia
and 'country hopping', as if that's illegal for asylum seekers, which it is not.

Actually those individuals in question from FD's example wouldn't be detained at all because Foxdemon called them "refugees" and not 'asylum seekers'. Asylum Seekers are detained until they get refugee status.

a bunch of Jewish refugees

.......so as I correctly stated....."As they are 'refugees' they would be protected accordingly...

[GandalfTheGrey]

What's the name of the Act quoted GTG?

Shouldn't it have been called the 'Eradication of culture' Act if that was indeed its main purpose?

Seriously Swag?

And the entrance to Auschwitz was inscribed with the words "Work makes you free".

[Swagman]

And the entrance to Auschwitz was inscribed with the words "Work makes you free".

So it's "Godwin The Grey" now is it?

[GandalfTheGrey]

In this case, I don't think there's anything wrong with invoking Godwin's law to highlight the stupidity of your argument.