Is western civilisation better than aboriginies of the past? (3 Viewers)

[Riet]

Yes, because convicts are usually in charge.

 

[Rockyroad]

*Tries to redirect thread*

I think every person on this thread agrees that the Aborgines were less technologically advanced. The argument (imo) should now be 'does technology = a better civilisation?' and the significance of other factors apart from technology.

Personally, I lean towards the fact that, to a certain extent, technology does not equal a 'better' civilisation. Eg the argument that technology increases life expectancy - well perhaps a civilisation that has a lower life expectancy happens to live more wholesomely or appreciates life more. I know that don't want to live too old when I can't move properly or take care of myself. My point is that saying technology + western civilisation gives us transport and a longer life expectancy needs an elaboration since imo these things do not automatically equal better. Isn't the point of life to be happy? So we must ask whether a longer life expectancy or transport has made us happier. I don't think it has.
I won't disregard people who believe that technology is better because it is a question on which I am not totally sure of.
But I don't agree that the Aborigines were a worse society because they had less technology. Technology has disadvantages and advantages. And I believe that all people should be treated equally. And that all races are equal. Those people who say things like 'Aborigines biggest achievement - hollow stick...etc' need to grasp the fact that Aborigines had a different culture to the settlers and valued different things, a lot of this has been lost.
It comes down to what you value eg you can say that an Aborigine at that time could survive in the outback.
I also think we should be discussing this with the same defintion of 'better' in our minds. For example, it is quite undeniable that the Aborigines'civilisation was 'better' for the planet/country (from the view that the environment should be preserved and that humans damaging the environment happens and is a bad thing) but you may believe it was not 'better' for the individuals in it.

And to those who insist that they aren't racist and yet believe the westerners are superior to the Aborigines, you might do well to revise what racist means:
racism - the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. So ask yourself whether you believe this and then post on here that you are racist just so we are all clear and it's in the open.
And it wasn't an event 231 years ago. Like other people have said, this abuse was inflicted in the 70s! the damage is raw. And those who ask how this can affect later generations - if effects those who were abused and whose loved ones were killed. Then it effects their children then their children and so on. It is the same in white society that you are more likely to abuse someone if you have been abused yourself. Well more Aborigines were abused. It is pretty simple - just look at the evidence - Aborigines basically fine -> White settlers arrive and kill and spread disease and introduce alcohol -> Aboriginal society is damaged. It is not the result of racial inferioty or being stamped out by another race co-existing. It is unlikely that the abuse inflicted would have no long lasting impact. And it affects later generations because whether you believe it or not - the fact that your grandparents faced prejudice based on simply their race etc is depressing and loosing the knowledge of your ancestors, where you came from and your culture is disheartening.
Whichever side you are on, you still accept that the collapse of their society stems from white invasion/'settlement' and I therefore believe we have an obligation to try and fix the problem we created. The collpase of their society was not their fault and blaming them does nothing to improve equality in our nation where the civilisation is a mixed one.

 

[Riet]

Happiness is intangible. In terms of all major indicators of a culture (technology, art, freedom, health, and so on) western society is far more advanced. Also their culture is no better for than the environment than a similarly sized western population.

 

[Rockyroad]

WTF happened to this thread? and why is everyone even giving such a dud like cxlxoxk so much attention? cxlxoxk is a fucking retard.

Because he's basically the only one here who opposes the main view (though a few things he has said are strange). Btw bigboyjames is your sig being sarcastic or quoting something or just trying to be controversial for the sake of it or is it your honest simple opinion?

 

[big8oyjames]

Because he's basically the only one here who opposes the main view (though a few things he has said are strange). Btw bigboyjames is your sig being sarcastic or quoting something or just trying to be controversial for the sake of it or is it your honest simple opinion?

check post 266.

 

[Rockyroad]

check post 266.

What's your point? I know cxcclox said that thing you quoted, I've read this whole thread. I'm talking about your original signiture 'war is peace...' ...?

 

[ongitsanjali]

What's that we have here, OH MY GOD IT'S THE RACISM CARD.

Because we don't accept your narrowminded point of view we're the bigots.

Seeing the irony here.

this is narrow minded?

explain please...

 

[ongitsanjali]

Because he's basically the only one here who opposes the main view (though a few things he has said are strange). Btw bigboyjames is your sig being sarcastic or quoting something or just trying to be controversial for the sake of it or is it your honest simple opinion?

i can't believe that there are so many people here that take the view that opposes his view, actually.

the government, board of education, and the media seem to all concur with him...

oh, wait, john howard seems to agree with you. wow that lends a LOT of credibility to ur argument, doesn't it?

there just seems to be an unusual concentration of primitive and narrow people on this site who believe that cars+technology+money= absolute superiority

 

[Will Shakespear]

i can't believe that there are so many people here that take the view that opposes his view, actually.

the government, board of education, and the media seem to all concur with him...

oh, wait, john howard seems to agree with you. wow that lends a LOT of credibility to ur argument, doesn't it?

there just seems to be an unusual concentration of primitive and narrow people on this site who believe that cars+technology+money= absolute superiority

it's not about one group of ppl being superior to another

it's about which culture is clearly more desirable to live in

 

[ongitsanjali]

It's "THIS IS THE ANSWER THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE". Which is utter bollocks. There is far more nuance and substance to this discussion than saying "I'm ENLIGHTENED AND YOU'RE RACISTS".

Basically the point of view you're taking is a relativistic viewpoint, which is utterly intellectually dishonest. Whether it's the product of educational indoctrination or just thinking that you're making a difference, it doesn't make it any less vapid.

It is categorically incorrect to say that the average standard of living in western civilisation is less than or equal to that of the average standard of living of a nomadic people without the technology or resources we possess.

Ahthankyouverymuch.

You wouldn't argue that a theocracy is equal to a democracy, so why would you argue that one culture can never be greater than the other.

Thus far we've made the argument using statistics and metrics that are generally taken to be indicative of the 'health' and success of a culture. You kids have made the argument that

a) ALL CULTURES HAVE TO BE EQUAL BECAUSE WE SAY SO
b) Noble savages, noble savages
c) If you don't agree you're racist.

Great arguments guys, no wonder you're all so well respected.

it depends on what you mean when you say culture. AND what you mean when you say superior

by culture, if you mean arts, language, and all that stuff, well you're totally unjustified coz that's very subjective.

if you're including everything, however, like health, etc. etc. then that's a different matter because you're talking about them as a people. they were healthy before they got all screwed up after the invasion. if they're sick, abused, generally retarded right now, it's bcoz of white supremacists like you

 

[ongitsanjali]

Yeah and you mindlessly agree with the govt, board of education and the media... why?

I make my arguments based on logic and rationalisations and above all, evidence. I don't call people racists and I don't rely on an emotional argument.



Someone who held the highest office in our land agreeing with a position would lend credibility to it, I would assume, yes.



It's primitive and narrow to use sociological identifiers to say that one outcome is superior to another?

Quick question; is being alive better than being dead? Is being healthy better than being sick? Is being raped better than being safe and secure?

Kind of important to get these things out of the way nice and early.

oh, and john howard was a wanker.

let me get this straight... do you think that "sorry" thing was a bad step?

 

[Ivorytw]

Wow...

I'm lollerskating guys.

 

[ongitsanjali]

dude, it's called a textbook

 

[ongitsanjali]

[citation needed]



It did absolutely nothing to address inequality and was an entirely populist gesture. It wasn't the correct way about dealing with the current problems faced by Indigenous Australians.

citation: the world

 

[ongitsanjali]

[citation needed]

:O i can't believe this...

Jackaranda Australian history
it has a picture of cathy freeman at the front.

 

[Rockyroad]

it's not about one group of ppl being superior to another

it's about which culture is clearly more desirable to live in

No I think the thread is about whether one civilisation is superior/better than the other. See the name of the thread.

 

[ongitsanjali]

your creationist textbook isnt based on evidence

 

[Riet]

Umm art isn't subjective when aboriginals gave us rock paintings and western civilisation gave us monet.

 

[ongitsanjali]

It claims to have mountains of evidence to support its presuppositions. Do we take all claims at face value?

History, of all things, is the one situation in which you don't have an underlying universal truth.

Further, I'm utterly surprised you assume there was no sickness or illness within Aboriginal communities before settlement here. What happened to these immortal beings?!

sorry.. i didn't mean that there was no disease, but it was significantly less than it is now.

and your creationist textbook has no tangible evidence. mine does, from primary sources

*smug*

 

[ongitsanjali]

Umm art isn't subjective when aboriginals gave us rock paintings and western civilisation gave us monet.

the rock paintings and monet are barely comparable because they were both saying totally different things. they were highly infused with symbolism and monet appeals primarily to an aesthetic sense