How stupid is this?
Peter Mackay
Meanwhile, Olympic athlete Nova Peris-Kneebone says there is a long way
to go towards reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
Australians.
Peris-Kneebone says there must be an acknowledgement of the past before
reconciliation can take place.
She says she hopes the Corroboree 2000 event will go some way towards
raising awareness about the issues facing indigenous Australians.
"Everyone is wanting reconciliation but my personal view is that you
can't reconcile, unless you acknowledge what you're reconciling for," she
said.
"And, you know, Australia's history, where does it begin?
"You know, to me it began 70-80,000 years ago, not when Captain Cook came
to Australia," Peris-Kneebone said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2000/05/item20000527041932_1.htm
History, being a record of events, began in Australia with European
discovery and settlement. For example, nobody knows the name of an
Australian resident who died prior to European arrival here, but we know
of Chinese folk who died thousands of years ago.
--
Cheers! Peter Mackay
peter....@bigpond.com
personal opinion only
Chris O'Neill
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 80,000 year history
>
> Meanwhile, Olympic athlete Nova Peris-Kneebone says there is a long way
> to go towards reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
> Australians.
>
> Peris-Kneebone says there must be an acknowledgement of the past before
> reconciliation can take place.
>
> She says she hopes the Corroboree 2000 event will go some way towards
> raising awareness about the issues facing indigenous Australians.
>
> "Everyone is wanting reconciliation but my personal view is that you
> can't reconcile, unless you acknowledge what you're reconciling for," she
> said.
>
> "And, you know, Australia's history, where does it begin?
>
> "You know, to me it began 70-80,000 years ago, not when Captain Cook came
> to Australia," Peris-Kneebone said.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2000/05/item20000527041932_1.htm
Recorded
> history, being a record of events, began in Australia with European
> discovery and settlement. For example, nobody knows the name of an
> Australian resident who died prior to European arrival here, but we know
> of Chinese folk who died thousands of years ago.
Pretty facile arguing about defintions.
Peter Mackay
con...@alphalink.com.au says...
No. History is the recording of events. There is no doubt that
Australians lived here for tens of thousands of years before Europeans
arrived, but we don't know anything about them. Wouldn't it be wonderful
if we did? Wouldn't we all be richer if they had recorded the notable
events, or even the details of day to day life?
Trying to pretend that such records exist when they do not is stupidity
or ignorance.
The Profit
Yes, Pretty facile arguing about definitions.
What % is a generation?
Has Howard really expressed personal regret "a million times"?
> History is the recording of events.
Then either historians are using redundant language
when they distinguish 'recorded history' from 'history'
or they recognise that history occurs, even when no
written record exists.
> There is no doubt that
> Australians lived here for tens of thousands of years before
Europeans
> arrived, but we don't know anything about them. Wouldn't it be
wonderful
> if we did? Wouldn't we all be richer if they had recorded the notable
> events, or even the details of day to day life?
Whats the point? Look at the facile nonsense you make
of what history IS recorded (Mz Peris-Kneebone, ABC)
>
> Trying to pretend that such records exist when they do not is
stupidity
> or ignorance.
Not knowing what occured does not make someone an
idiot for acknowledging it existed.
>
> --
>
> Cheers! Peter Mackay
>
> peter....@bigpond.com
> personal opinion only
>
--
"Money is our god" - The First International Bank of the Golden Calf
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Truth Hurts
Nova Peris-Kneebone has got more Sri Lankan blood than Aboriginal blood. She
only acknowledged her aboriginality later in life, when she went to live
with her father. Prier to that she used to identify as Sri lankan origin. IT
amazes me how people who are only a small part aboriginal she is 25% can
suddenly be talking about 50,000 years of her races legacy , What about her
Sri Lankan legacy? what about the 50% white blood that her father carries
around? Maybe the Aboriginal genes are the most dominate in the idenity
part of one's genes
Che Guava
Truth Hurts wrote:
> Nova Peris-Kneebone has got more Sri Lankan blood
What colour is Sri Lankan blood?
> than Aboriginal blood.
How can the ratio of the two types of blood be established?
Are the cells or plasma identifiable as one or the other?
> She only acknowledged her aboriginality later in life, when she went to live
> with her father. Prier to that she used to identify as Sri lankan origin.
Is there a time limit on identity?
A statute of limitations on becoming aware of ones heritage?
> IT amazes me how people who are only a small part aboriginal
Is she a small part-aboriginal?
I thought she was quite a tall woman.
> she is 25% can suddenly be talking about 50,000 years of her races legacy ,
At what percentage (sic) of ethnicity do you recognize someone's ethnicity?
> What about her Sri Lankan legacy?
you want to deny it too?
Can't children with ancestry from multiple cultures celebrate
each and every one?
> what about the 50% white blood that her father carries
> around?
anemia?
> Maybe the Aboriginal genes are the most dominate in the idenity
> part of one's genes
Maybe you are talking racist shite unheard of since the days of eugenics.
Truth Hurts
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3930D336...@my-deja.com...
>
>
> Truth Hurts wrote:
>
> > Nova Peris-Kneebone has got more Sri Lankan blood
>
> What colour is Sri Lankan blood?
>
> > than Aboriginal blood.
>
> How can the ratio of the two types of blood be established?
> Are the cells or plasma identifiable as one or the other?
indistinguishable
>
> > She only acknowledged her aboriginality later in life, when she went to
live
> > with her father. Prier to that she used to identify as Sri lankan
origin.
>
> Is there a time limit on identity?
> A statute of limitations on becoming aware of ones heritage?
has only known for twelve years and a linage that she is only represented by
25% of her genotype
>
> > IT amazes me how people who are only a small part aboriginal
>
> Is she a small part-aboriginal?
> I thought she was quite a tall woman.
>
> > she is 25% can suddenly be talking about 50,000 years of her races
legacy ,
>
> At what percentage (sic) of ethnicity do you recognize someone's
ethnicity?
>
> > What about her Sri Lankan legacy?
>
> you want to deny it too?
Nope I don't want to deny anything, I am only suggesting that when Nova's
pointing the finger at peoples who she considers are the blame , she should
remember she is 25% racial genotype the same as the people she is pointing
at.
>
> Can't children with ancestry from multiple cultures celebrate
> each and every one?
Of course but instead of being selective about it people should relate that
they are a living example of reconciliation because they genetically
represent the two cultures ( in Nova's case Three cultures)
> > what about the 50% white blood that her father carries
> > around?
>
> anemia?
Ok 50% Genetic attributes that her father.................
>
> > Maybe the Aboriginal genes are the most dominate in the idenity
> > part of one's genes
>
> Maybe you are talking racist shite unheard of since the days of eugenics.
Where Did I suggest a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others?
No where, You cry racist with no evidence but your doctrine!, I can hear you
calling witch, witch!! will your lot revert to throwing 'racists' into the
water to see if they float? Che, Your words are as shallow as your
rhetoric , Maybe you are the epitome of inferior eugenics?
>
Stan Rosenthal
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
:>History, being a record of events, began in Australia with European
Spoken like a true computer nerd.
%%%%%%%%%%%% Delete what you need from my address to email me %%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Most people do not accumulate a body of experience. Most people go through
life undergoing a series of happenings, which pass through their systems
undigested." - Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"
Peter Mackay
> Then either historians are using redundant language
> when they distinguish 'recorded history' from 'history'
> or they recognise that history occurs, even when no
> written record exists.
History is the record of events. If you can't read it or see it or listen
to it nowadays, there's no history.
Certainly events happened, but if people didn't record them, then there's
no history.
Australian history commenced with the arrival of Europeans, that's the
fact. But if you disagree, just tell me the name of an Australian who
died prior to 1770 and what he or she did.
And I'll give you a long list of Chinese folk who died thousands of years
ago and what they did. That's history.
Constantinople fell to the Muslim horde in 1453 AD. We have eyewitness
accounts of the event, and we know the names and deeds of many of the
principal figures. What was happening at the same time in Australia? We
just don't know.
Wouldn't it be nice if we did? Wouldn't it be great to know the names and
deeds of the mighty hunters and warriors and explorers?
But we don't. We have a few rock paintings, a few stone tools, a few
grooves in rocks, and that's about it.
Oh yeah. We have a few fairy stories of Rainbow Serpents and gods who
moved mountains.
Peter Mackay
st...@whatyouneedmelbpc.org.au says...
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 13:13:25 +1000, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> :>History, being a record of events, began in Australia with European
>
> Spoken like a true computer nerd.
History comes from times before there were computers, Stan. Is that the
sum total of your argument? Abuse?
In just about every house in Australia you will find a copy of the Bible.
In that book you may read history, amongst the fables to be sure, but
still history. Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem was indeed built, and a part
of it remains to this day. I have no doubt that there was an Ark of the
Covenant, though I must admit to some skepticism over the dimensions of
the Sea of Solomon, which apparently was a circle with a circumference
three times its diameter.
There is history in the bible, two thousand years and more old. What
history do we have in Australia from two thousand years ago?
Chris O'Neill
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <8gpo2n$nbd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, che_...@my-deja.com says...
> > Then either historians are using redundant language
> > when they distinguish 'recorded history' from 'history'
> > or they recognise that history occurs, even when no
> > written record exists.
>
> History is the record of events. If you can't read it or see it or listen
> to it nowadays, there's no history.
>
> Certainly events happened, but if people didn't record them, then there's
> no history.
>
> Australian history commenced with the arrival of Europeans, that's the
> fact. But if you disagree, just tell me the name of an Australian who
> died prior to 1770 and what he or she did.
Wait till he agrees with your definition of history before you assume he
does.
> And I'll give you a long list of Chinese folk who died thousands of years
> ago and what they did. That's history.
>
> Constantinople fell to the Muslim horde in 1453 AD. We have eyewitness
> accounts of the event, and we know the names and deeds of many of the
> principal figures. What was happening at the same time in Australia? We
> just don't know.
So if the records of some event are destroyed, the event does not exist
in history. If the records are witten in a language we do not understand
then it does not exist in history.
> Wouldn't it be nice if we did? Wouldn't it be great to know the names and
> deeds of the mighty hunters and warriors and explorers?
So to be a part of history it needs to be nice.
Peter Mackay
con...@alphalink.com.au says...
> In article <MPG.139c2de5b...@news.bigpond.com>, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <8gpo2n$nbd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, che_...@my-deja.com says...
> > > Then either historians are using redundant language
> > > when they distinguish 'recorded history' from 'history'
> > > or they recognise that history occurs, even when no
> > > written record exists.
> >
> > History is the record of events. If you can't read it or see it or listen
> > to it nowadays, there's no history.
> >
> > Certainly events happened, but if people didn't record them, then there's
> > no history.
> >
> > Australian history commenced with the arrival of Europeans, that's the
> > fact. But if you disagree, just tell me the name of an Australian who
> > died prior to 1770 and what he or she did.
>
> Wait till he agrees with your definition of history before you assume he
> does.
I'm using the dictionary definition of history.
>
> > And I'll give you a long list of Chinese folk who died thousands of years
> > ago and what they did. That's history.
> >
> > Constantinople fell to the Muslim horde in 1453 AD. We have eyewitness
> > accounts of the event, and we know the names and deeds of many of the
> > principal figures. What was happening at the same time in Australia? We
> > just don't know.
>
> So if the records of some event are destroyed, the event does not exist
> in history.
No. There is no history of the event. It certainly exists in time. For
instance, we know that dinosaurs lived on Earth. We know what they looked
like, what they ate, when and where they lived. Nobody disputes these
facts. But there is no history of their lives because nobody was around
to record them.
> If the records are witten in a language we do not understand
> then it does not exist in history.
Hardly. The written records make the history. I don't read Latin, but I
accept the existence of the Roman Empire.
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice if we did? Wouldn't it be great to know the names and
> > deeds of the mighty hunters and warriors and explorers?
>
> So to be a part of history it needs to be nice.
No. It needs to be recorded. That's the crucial element.
It appears you are confusing the past with the record of the past.
Chris O'Neill
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <coneill-3005...@d26-as17-mel.alphalink.com.au>,
> con...@alphalink.com.au says...
> > In article <MPG.139c2de5b...@news.bigpond.com>, Peter Mackay
> > <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8gpo2n$nbd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, che_...@my-deja.com says...
> > > > Then either historians are using redundant language
> > > > when they distinguish 'recorded history' from 'history'
> > > > or they recognise that history occurs, even when no
> > > > written record exists.
> > >
> > > History is the record of events. If you can't read it or see it or listen
> > > to it nowadays, there's no history.
> > >
> > > Certainly events happened, but if people didn't record them, then there's
> > > no history.
> > >
> > > Australian history commenced with the arrival of Europeans, that's the
> > > fact. But if you disagree, just tell me the name of an Australian who
> > > died prior to 1770 and what he or she did.
> >
> > Wait till he agrees with your definition of history before you assume he
> > does.
>
> I'm using the dictionary definition of history.
Which one? My little dictionary has got "record of public events; study of
past events. [Gk. historia: inquiry]". Also "historical: based on history;
belonging to the past".
Does "study of past events" require a written record. Does "inquiry"
require a written record? Does "belonging in the past" require a written
record?
> > > And I'll give you a long list of Chinese folk who died thousands of years
> > > ago and what they did. That's history.
> > >
> > > Constantinople fell to the Muslim horde in 1453 AD. We have eyewitness
> > > accounts of the event, and we know the names and deeds of many of the
> > > principal figures. What was happening at the same time in Australia? We
> > > just don't know.
> >
> > So if the records of some event are destroyed, the event does not exist
> > in history.
>
> No. There is no history of the event. It certainly exists in time. For
> instance, we know that dinosaurs lived on Earth. We know what they looked
> like, what they ate, when and where they lived. Nobody disputes these
> facts. But there is no history of their lives because nobody was around
> to record them.
>
> > If the records are witten in a language we do not understand
> > then it does not exist in history.
>
> Hardly. The written records make the history. I don't read Latin, but I
> accept the existence of the Roman Empire.
But if the Fall of Constantinople had been recorded in a language that no-one
now understood, you "would not know". Does that satisfy your defintion of
not being history.
> > > Wouldn't it be nice if we did? Wouldn't it be great to know the names and
> > > deeds of the mighty hunters and warriors and explorers?
> >
> > So to be a part of history it needs to be nice.
>
> No. It needs to be recorded. That's the crucial element.
You went off on a tangent about niceness and greatness. I was pulling you
back in.
> It appears you are confusing the past with the record of the past.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm perfectly capably of understanding a
definition. All you have to do is come up with an authoritative
definition. There's no point in putting up arguments except for
interpreting the meaning of an authoritative definition.
Bron
Chris O'Neill <con...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:coneill-3105...@d05-as13-mel.alphalink.com.au...
>
> Does "study of past events" require a written record. Does "inquiry"
> require a written record? Does "belonging in the past" require a written
> record?
Just out of curiousity (and i'm not buying into the arguement) how do you
know what happens in history without written record?
Bron
Che Guava
Peter Mackay wrote:
> In article <8gpo2n$nbd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, che_...@my-deja.com says...
> > Then either historians are using redundant language
> > when they distinguish 'recorded history' from 'history'
> > or they recognise that history occurs, even when no
> > written record exists.
> History is the record of events.
Excellent.. then shell middens record history.
Rock paintings record history.
Songlines record history.
> If you can't read it or see it or listen
> to it nowadays, there's no history.
I have seen it.. it said platypus and kangaroo.
Sould it have said "Henry begat Elizabeth"?
> Certainly events happened, but if people didn't record them, then there's
> no history.
"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians used
picturegraph methods of recording important information.
They did not have a written language in the sense that
they did not have an alphabet. However they did use art
as a form of communication or language which they expressed
in a number of different forms such as rock carvings, cave
paintings and designs (symbols) cut into trees, wooden articles
such as boomerangs and on their bodies (scarification).
The symbols, designs and replications of their artwork were not
random or for the purpose of amusement or creativity. Their
art was in fact 'expressions of their beliefs', their Dreamtime
and personal stories (Dreaming)view of life or in some cases,
records of historical events. "
"In some cases stories and other art was
sacred in the sense of being exclusive to initiated males.
Other stories were secular (non-sacred) and included stories
for children and those that recorded epic events (great battles,
memorable hunting expeditions or the arrival of Whitman into
the tribes' territory)."
"The expression 'every painting tells a story' is particularly true
about the artwork of the Australian Aborigines. "
Che
-----
The biological history of every people is written in their DNA..
The history of their invention is recorded in their technology...
It is facile to deny that the archeological evidence supports
Ms Peris-Kneebone's assertion of a long history of
occupation of this land..