Thread: Australia's shameful past

Originally Posted by David48atTD

That was my general understanding of Aboriginal Tribal interaction, but I couldn't find any Australian studies of note to support that theory. Have you uncovered any?

Not studies of Australian Aboriginals specifically but it is obviously hard to find large populations of insulated indigenous peoples to study.

South America probably has (or had until recently) the largest such populations.

The studies carried out by Napoleon Chagnon on the Yanomamo are considered some of the best available on capturing what human civilisation must have been like in pre-history.

We are all homo sapiens and it is likely that the behaviour of the Yanomamo is typical of pre-state human societies.

The behaviour is typically a semi-permanent state of tribal hostility where anyone wandering into the wrong territory can expect to be killed.

Inter-village raids are common with the objective being to kill males and abduct females.

In the words of Thomas Hobbes: life in pre-state human society was almost certainly 'nasty, brutish and short'.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Still no evidence, other than supposition, that they were as war like as you seem to think. Im sure this study you referred to was about South American tribes? Apples and Oranges?

Not really apples and oranges.

Tribal warfare is the natural way of life for socially grouping territorial primates like chimpanzees and humans.

The south american natives have been the subject of detailed 20th century scientific anthropological study but there is plenty of evidence of war-like behaviour from 18th century tribes of aboriginals from accounts of the first white settlers.

Totally unremarkable. Anything else would run counter to evolutionary theory. Life is a competition for survival and success. Permanent war is the natural state that exists between tribes since they are in direct conflict over resources.

It is only once agrarianism and livestock rearing take root, and the possibility for trading in these resources develops (i.e. the beginnings of civilisation), that an incentive for inter tribal cooperation has a rationale to take root.

The idea of tribes of pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer humans living in peace and harmony with one another and with nature is romantic garbage dreamed up by drug addled hippies which the aborigines and American Indians have latched onto and try to foster as an image to garner sympathy as a strategy for modern day political advancement.

Originally Posted by Looper

We are the paragon of animals. Like an angel in apprehension.

the fuck?

loopers post above is spot on.

Originally Posted by Looper

The idea of tribes of pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer humans living in peace and harmony with one another and with nature is romantic garbage dreamed up by drug addled hippies

Yeah, they were ruthless savages, really, and were rightly treated as such by the civilised explorers and discoverers of Australia. It's evolution in action, the inferior wither away, or would do, if it wasn't for those darn treehugging hippies and their PC offspring.

Originally Posted by taxexile

loopers post above is spot on.

For someone living in the 14 th century. South American natives, does he mean the Inca, the Maya, and the Toltec? They were pretty civlized, famed for it in fact.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

For someone living in the 14 th century. South American natives, does he mean the Inca, the Maya, and the Toltec? They were pretty civlized, famed for it in fact.

He will carefully exclude and ignore any real evidence to support his flaky supposition.
That's all he has. An assumption that tiny tribes in small numbers, spread over a vast continent, fought over plentiful resources. It makes no sense in the Australian Aborigine context.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

My understanding was that they honoured each others' territory or got speared for trespass.
And that occasionally there would be formalised battles in which men would line up with spears and let fly, but when people on the other side got wounded, they would all stop and assess the damage and see whether "an eye for an eye" had been achieved.....whatever the original grievance had been.

And sometimes they all got together, like in the Bunya mountains :

The Bunya Nut festival

An important aspect of indigenous life on the Darling Downs was the Bunya Nut Festival. This festival was held in the land of the Jarowair tribe every 2 to 3 years or whenever the nuts were abundant. Archibald Meston, amateur anthropologist and inaugural Chief Protector of Aborigines in Queensland, recorded the Bunya Nut Festival as attracting tribes from Gympie, Maryborough, Balonne, Maranoa, Moonie, Barwon, New England, Brisbane River, Tweed River and all parts of the Darling Downs. It is estimated that at least 14 different Aboriginal dialects would have been represented at the festival. The festival was important as it was a time for the tribes of Southern Queensland to meet and conduct initiation ceremonies and corroborees (ceremonies in which there is traditional dancing and singing), to settle arguments, swap information and, of course, feast on the bunya nuts. This feast continued in the area until as late as the 1870's.

And an important meet to exchange genetic material.

Originally Posted by Looper

there is plenty of evidence of war-like behaviour from 18th century tribes of aboriginals from accounts of the first white settlers.

As you rightly say.

Originally Posted by Looper

Totally unremarkable

Challenged by superior forces trying to settle lands previously at their sole disposal, they would fight to retain such abundant territory.
There is evidence of atrocities on both sides, but you can't blame the incumbents for trying to retain something established over centuries.
The fact they did not have the developed status or organization to respond to seriously superior and organized forces, is no surprise.

They had no warlike history between themselves to mount any effective or collective challenge to the settlers. Another nail in the coffin of your wildly inaccurate supposition. Your theory hold no water in this case Looper.

All this is moot. In today's society we see subjugation of a people as unenlightened. We won't do it again (except by stealth and ingenuous excuses cf Israel, but it's still evil) and we should have no need to justify the past. It happened, and the descendants are aggrieved.
There's no point in "the noble savage vs the savage primitive" argument. Colonists did what they did, and we should have no need to gloss over it nor do we have a need to ignore the indigenous view point/side of the story.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

All this is moot. In today's society we see subjugation of a people as unenlightened. We won't do it again (except by stealth and ingenuous excuses cf Israel, but it's still evil) and we should have no need to justify the past. It happened, and the descendants are aggrieved.
There's no point in "the noble savage vs the savage primitive" argument. Colonists did what they did, and we should have no need to gloss over it nor do we have a need to ignore the indigenous view point/side of the story.

There will be little support for that position from the Australian contemporary view point. They see the Aboriginal as a drain on resources and benefits that are not deserved.
That is to get away from the original point. I am not trying to justify the case for Aborigine emancipation, merely pointing out that, until settlers arrived, the locals had lived a fairly simple and primitive life, and did not squander abundant resources.
They did not sign up for mining rights, HIV and iPhone lifestyles. They were subjugated by an aggressive colonial force, which had just one original aim. To establish a penal colony.
My main point is that there is a very important lesson to be learned from the Aborigine lifestyle. There presence and culture was sustainable. The modern capitalist mantra of continuous growth based on consumption is not.
Given the changes over intervening years, it seems sensible to adapt the best of both worlds for the future. Even if it means allowing the original residents to return to their cultural roots.

Originally Posted by chassamui

They had no warlike history between themselves

Total garbage. They were pre-civilised splintered tribes, therefore they were naturally and perpetually at war.

Originally Posted by chassamui

there is a very important lesson to be learned from the Aborigine lifestyle. There presence and culture was sustainable.

Romantic fiction. Like all primitive humans their tribes were self-centred destructive and the only reason they did not destroy more was because they had not invented any decent tools yet.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

There's no point in "the noble savage vs the savage primitive" argument.

The noble savage myth is used to foster an unwarranted level of guilt in modern Australians by suggesting we destroyed peace-loving ecologists. It is garbage. They were, like all primitive savages, naturally war-mongering eco-terrorists. A tribal native has no concept of conservation. You need to have a bigger world view to start understanding things like ecological conservation. They would not understand it if you tried to explain it to them for a week.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

For someone living in the 14 th century. South American natives, does he mean the Inca, the Maya, and the Toltec? They were pretty civlized, famed for it in fact.

Yes South America had proper civilisations. The Mayans for one engaged in agriculture. So they had begun the pacification process and started moving away from a natural state of war.

I am talking about the tribes still living wild in the amazon jungle in the 1960s. The yanomamo. They provided a much better picture of what life for pre-civilised humans must have been like.

I would have thought that that Papua New guinea natives would be close in behaviour to Aboriginal and Torres strait islanders as they are only a very short island hop away. Tribal wars and payback are still rife in PNG as well as a myriad of languages (around 800).
I'm sure the aboriginal war dance isn't an invitation for tea and crumpets. The huge number of Languages alone would suggest limited interaction between aboriginal tribes. Inter tribal war was commonplace in the world and the aboriginal was no different. In saying that it does not excuse the dispossession and killing of aboriginals by early white settlers. This was common around the world with the natives on various continents by European settlers. We also could talk about the "shameful" history of vikings romans, portugese, french, spanish, etc. Australia has at least tried to correct some of the wrongs with up to $30 Billion being spent on a population of approx 600,00 aboriginals each year which is approx twice that spent on white Australians. Australia also has one of the most liberal definitions of an Aboriginal in the world. A person only needs to have descended from an aboriginal no matter how small the percentage and be recognised by other Aboriginals to be classed as indigenous. Native land title extends to an area of Australia larger than the U.K. We still have chronic problems in Aboriginal communities including violence, theft, vandalism, drugs and alcohol. Aboriginal women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised from family violence than white women and in some places are 600 times more likely to be killed by their aboriginal partner. In spite of all the money spent things are not really improving. The problems have mushroomed since the introduction of welfare or "sit down" money as it was called is also helping destroy aboriginals. It is difficult to see any improvement in the future as many have got use to a "European" lifestyle without the obligation and individual responsibility and accountability inherent in both traditional tribal or western life. Unfortunately now there are few who wish to go back to a hunter gatherer type existence of their ancestors. Trying to have a leg on both sides of the fence is not possible. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Until the "victim" mentality of many is replaced I see no hope for the Native Australian. Very sad to see a once proud people reduced to alcoholism and welfare dependence.

Originally Posted by Looper

They were pre-civilised splintered tribes, therefore they were naturally and perpetually at war.

Rubbish. That's an assumption based on prejudice.
What need do small clans have for war when they are spread out so far apart and the resources are plenty? Wars are fought for conquest of resources or riches. The risk of death is not worth it when you have all you need.
Trespassers, surely were fought, but to characterize the entire Aboriginal nation as perpetually at war is wrong.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

up to $30 Billion being spent on a population of approx 600,00 aboriginals each year

What was the population in 1700?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Rubbish. That's an assumption based on prejudice.
What need do small clans have for war when they are spread out so far apart and the resources are plenty? Wars are fought for conquest of resources or riches. The risk of death is not worth it when you have all you need.
Trespassers, surely were fought, but to characterize the entire Aboriginal nation as perpetually at war is wrong.

That
's all true but Looper has stopped listening. He continues to argue based on supposition.
There simply weren't the numbers to support what he SUGGESTS, while he shouts down opposing commentary like a frightened child. There's more to this than meets the eye.
Land and resources were plentiful so there was no reason to fight, even if neighbours could be found in the vastness of the continent.
He's playing games or hiding something.
This is definitely not his usual logical debating style

Originally Posted by DrB0b

What was the population in 1700?

There is conflicting information about population sizes, but in general, the indigenous population prior to settlement was estimated to be found one million, distributed along current population lines. This was decimated in the 3 years following settlers arriving, by the spread of smallpox.
About 10,000 years ago population estimates stood at around 250,000, so growth was achieved despite Loopers permanent ,war like, tribal assertions.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Rubbish. That's an assumption based on prejudice. What need do small clans have for war when they are spread out so far apart and the resources are plenty?

How do you know how far apart they were spread out or how bountiful were resources?

The idea is not based on prejudice. It is based on 3 things:

1. evolutionary theory about tribal competition in socially grouping species
2. observation of pre-state peoples by anthropologists and colonists
3. comparison with our nearest evolved relatives

I am not saying they were at each others throats going at it hammer and tongs from dawn till dusk 365.

They probably spent most of their time quietly going about their business on their own turf.

But like chimpanzees, turf war-fare would have been a way of life. Any (male) interloper would have been met with violence. Any organised encroachment would have been met with a pitched battle.

Warring behaviour is the norm for social apes like chimpanzees and humans.

Anthropological studies of pre-state people show them to lead tribally insular territorial lives like chimpanzees. Not surprising since chimps are our closest relatives. Anecdotal evidence from colonists also describes naturally war-like behaviour when territory is threatened by whitey or by rival tribes. Not really surprising stuff. Anything else would be surprising.

War is natural for socially grouping species. Not 24/7, not 365 but whenever interests overlap as they surely do from time to time. Life is a competition and interests are in conflict when valuable resources are vied over by rival tribes. I don't think these are really surprising or contentious ideas.

The amazing (amazingly good) thing is that through agrarianism and industrialisation we are able to bootstrap ourselves into advanced organised civilisations and subjugate the natural forces of war in favour of the more civilised interests of trade and mutually beneficial commerce.

University Of Sydney

Official Record up to WW2

• At the time of European settlement, there were around 250,000 Aboriginal people in Australia.
• By 1920, that number had dropped to 80,000, and the race is “rapidly disappearing”
• Numbers up to 1944 were between 70,000 and 80,000, with the mixed race proportion rising from under 20% in the early 1920s to around 35% in the early 1940s

Alternative view

Pre-WW2 data

• At the time of European settlement, there were over 300,000 Aboriginal people in Australia
• Numbers fell during the following century, as a result of disease and dispossession
• At Federation, Aboriginal numbers were around 150,000, 4% of the Australian population
• Based on fairly constant numbers reported in a range of censuses, and allowing for likely undercounting, the Aboriginal population, remained around 150,000 up to 1945
• Mixed origin people comprised 35% by WW2

Originally Posted by Looper

The amazing (amazingly good) thing is that through agrarianism and industrialisation we are able to bootstrap ourselves into advanced organised civilisations and subjugate the natural forces of war in favour of the more civilised interests of trade and mutually beneficial commerce.

A thin veneer of those things, anyway. Look at how many wars there have been going on at any given time in the last 200 years.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

What need do small clans have for war when they are spread out so far apart and the resources are plenty? Wars are fought for conquest of resources or riches. The risk of death is not worth it when you have all you need.
Trespassers, surely were fought, but to characterize the entire Aboriginal nation as perpetually at war is wrong.

But what happens when a cancer called humans run out of land or resources ?
They don't even need to run out of land or resources. A better way of life or just simply protecting it is enough reason to infest.

Looper you are making a schoolboy error of lumping Australian aborigines with all other known societies.
Australia is a unique continent, both from flora and fauna points of view, and the lengthy isolation of a small number of scattered tribes, with no external influences.
They were nomads following seasonal foods, not a slowly developing agrarian culture that you constantly refer to.
Interesting though that they lived in the same areas chosen by the settlers, from NSW to Queensland and NT.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

up to $30 Billion being spent on a population of approx 600,00 aboriginals each year

What was the population in 1700?

Not sure of your point Bob. It really is unknown. Estimates vary wildly as most of the interior was unexplored. No doubt disease from Europeans such as measles and smallpox would have affected the native population as it did in the Americas and many south sea island nations. The sheer size of Australia meant that many aboriginals had no contact with white settlers for many years after white settlement. In fact the last known tribe to see a white man for the first time was 1984.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

up to $30 Billion being spent on a population of approx 600,00 aboriginals each year

What was the population in 1700?

Not sure of your point Bob.

It wasn't a point, it was a question, and the answer, at least in proportional terms, is not unknown.