but what really is the joke is the way you, jb and Neb jump on this anti-Jewish bandwagon.
i realised it was a joke?? and why the whole antagonism towards JaredR just because he was making a joke? And seriously guys you have to learn to stop making people fit into stereotypes. It doesnt help anything. Its Christmas lol so be nicejb_nc said:
:uhhuh:
ummm... its a Christian holiday and i happen to be buddhist. So it isnt my holiday, but i do believe in the general principle, that it is a time of peace and goodwill. that is the philosophy of buddhism. balance, peace, goodwill, respect and understanding. any religion is fine, as long as you are comfortable with it and it suits your spiritual purpose.boris said:
oh, and merry christmas to you, boris jb_nc said:
Nebuchanezzar said:
Hey I agree with you on the most part. But we should keep in mind that removing children from child abuse or neglect is not a long term solution. We need to do more than that, to try and break the cycle. Plus foster care isn't always as good as some people here seem to think of it as. I think all (or atleast most) of us agree that children must be removed from child abuse and neglect. But remember the title of the thread is why there are so many/an increasing amount of Aboriginal children in care. Why? After reading this thread, I think most of us sit on one side of the fence or the other. I.e. You think that the Aborigines aren't as an advanced or intelligent than white settlers and therefoe White settlers are thriving because they are superior....brasileira said:
by sterilising aborigines, thus preventing future child abuseRockyroad said:
we acknowledge the original custodians of this thread, the darraawall people, and recognise the elders and people of their tribe - past, present and future, for it is these people who hold the customs, traditions, hopes, and dreams, of the aboriginal culture.RSVPixie said:
whats so good about their culture we should even careRSVPixie said:
u mean besides their great sense of spirituality, their ability (or was their ability before the European settlers took over) to live of the land and coexist with all Australia's animals whist causing minimal damage to the enivornment (which we cant even do to the degree they aborigines did despite all of the knowledge and technology at our dispisal).jb_nc said:
i lol'dgibbo153 said:
The aborigines had an enormous importance in the land, and no matter which part of Australia, they had survived peacefully alongside the creatures and the environment. Their culture is unique in its approach to the land and mostly how to survive in such unhospitable places as, for example, the kimberlys, was passed down from generation to generation through stories told by the elders. They had a society free of disease and so incredibly in tune with nature and their surroundings that it is incredible to me that you would ask such a silly question in the first place. The uniqueness of their culture, and its sustainability for tens of thousands of years is a demonstration of Australia's history over those 40, 000 years. There is no other documentation of Australia's history, and this, being the only record of it, should be preserved. We can learn a lot about Australia if we could track down the stories told about specific areas. Did you know that in South Australia, the European settlers found 7 fresh water springs by listening to and following directions told through aboriginal dreamtime stories? and you could ask the same question of christianity; why should we bother upholding that as a religion? the very same reason; it is part of our history, part of who we are; as is the aboriginal culture part of the land we now have removed from those to whom it meant so much. if we wish to learn from our mistakes, we first have to know what our mistakes were; in this case, it was the act of interrupting the peaceful aboriginal way of life and almost completely destroying their culture.jb_nc said:
that makes their culture generic, because you could say that if the environment was slightly different, their culture would be. something that is completely derived or reflected from something else, is not special.greekgun said:
