My my this topis is certainly on fire - so many things to respond to, apologies this post may become rather fragmented, or if events have passed me in its posting. Though I promnise to end on a light note.
Original Australians: The use of this to describe aboriginals (itself a term flawed by its generic nature) is clearly erronous and
anti-multicultural.
For a start
Australia did not exist prior to the establishment of a british colony. And indeed for some time after this point. 'Australia' is in many ways an abstract concept - it is the embodiement of an abstract, the nation-state. Prior to colonisation (and for a period following) there was no nation-state, ther was no Australia.
Aboriginal tribes (apologies to any anthropologiosts reading this who like to be more semantic with the terminology) did not form any larger aboriginal nation. There was no over-arching culture, customs or even language.
In terms of the nation-state Australia was Terra Nullius, yes it was certainly inhabited by Aboriginies however it was not inhabited by either a nation or a state. In this framework the land was unclaimed and empty - ripe for the taking by any nation-state.
In sum the term makes as much sence as declaring the irish (as celts) the original french because they occupied the geographical area we know as France prior to being pushed out by competing ethnic groups. The same applies to virtually every country you can name; the welsh are perhaps more 'originally english' than the anglo-celts we know as the english, etc etc.
Moving on the term Original Australian serves only to seperate rather than include people as Australians. It basically holds Aboriginals above anyone who has arrived since. Thus this term is as wrong as any racism directed toward more recent migrants by the descendents of the british settlers.
It is as morally wrong as me declaring that I am better than Katie because I am a 5th generation Australian and she is a 2nd. In many ways it is a racist term and in its usage serves to create divides not bridges.
I am not opposed to the acknowledgement of a previous aboriginal inhabitance, much like I am not opposed to Katie professing an Intalian heritage or minka a serb/croat one. Living in a functional multi-cultural society requires you to integrate however it does not require you to abandon your heritage.
Bushrangers hunt 'abos': Why? Why would a bushranger hunt an aboriginal? They were criminals interested in making a profit, what profit can be made by killing an aboriginal? Bushrangers robbed people, white people - because white people had money. In fact as an interesting aside
many aboriginals were bushrangers in the sense that they were members of gangs and functioning in the capacity of helping bushrangers navigate 'the bush' to both avoid police and flee from police.
Diggers: They went to war to prove Australia, they went to war to cement Australia's relationship with Britain. Similarily to our current relationship with the US we fight in their wars in the service of our own national interest. This is why we fought in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Malaysia, IraqI, IragII, etc.
Branco said:
Australians should be very proud of their british cultural heritage. The UK has contributed more to the world in the last 500 years than just about any other nation and it has certainly contributed more than any predominantly muslim nation. I can't seem to recall the Muslim equivalent of Darwin or Newton? and I very much doubt that the Muslims have produced anyone who can even begin to rival shakespeare. Not to mention they have a proud history of freedom for their citizens with magna carta, bill of rights etc that is only bested by the US.
Now for some blind nationalism from the other side of the debate...
The muslim world was the keeper of western knowledge during Europes dark ages. The great libraries and universities of the muslim world were the primary seat of learning the world over. They made important breakthroughs and discoveries, especially in mathematics and science. Scholars from the west travelled to the muslim world to study. As Europe emerged from the dark ages and this knowledge returned to Europe it directly enabled the enlightenment. The enlightenment began as a rediscovery of roman and italian thought - this had been harboured by muslims.
The Darwins, Newtons, Galileos, Surgeons, Philosphers, etc all owe their achievements to the storing and expanding on of greek and roman thinking by muslims.
Our numbers for fucks sake are Hindu-Arabic numerals. They invented a numerical system including 0 and negative numbers, they made important breakthroughs in algebra. I advise you to get a clue before ranting about our unparalleled cultural supremecy - europeans were not always great.
I daresay that you do not speak arabic, or persian, and probably not any languages other than english. Do you think shakespeare has a prominent place on the muslim reading list? Just because in your sheltered existence you have not come across great literature from anyone non-european does not mean it does not exist.
Are you too say that there are no great arab (afterall islam is a religion not a race so the term muslim is misleading here), chinese, indian, japanese, persian, swedish or even russian authors/playrights/poets/philosophers.
Your knowledge is constrained by three things: what has been translated into english, what you choose to read (I hazard a guess - not very much) and what you are made to read.
Our educational system does not make you read the Qur'an, The Art of War, Beyond Good and Evil or the Republic this is however not a basis for declaring the middle-east, Germany or Greece a cultural wasteland.
In sum In the coming years I hope you get smarter - though I fear you may not.
Katie said:
I dress up as a leprechaun on St Pats because I love Irish people. I don't know why, but they're just awesome. If I could claim any other heritage, it would be teh Irish.
Have I mentioned I'm part Irish?
