"Aborigines are dirty and lazy"
Garth Foster
"Do you agree or disagree?"
This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
the correct answer to the question?
For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious - based
on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Albert Djungarai
In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>
> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
> the correct answer to the question?
>
> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
based
> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
Racist barsted.
malloc
Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Do you agree or disagree?"
Disagree I'm afraid.
Not everyone can afford to wear a nice clean white sheet
like yourself, Garff.
Lawrie Waller
Albert Djungarai wrote in message <6jjal4$jln$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>>
>> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view
on
>> the correct answer to the question?
>>
>> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
>based
>> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
>> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>>
>
>Racist barsted.
Only if the original poster is lying - or is it possible to be a racist
"barsted" through telling the truth?
Garth Foster
In article <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
"malloc" <bro...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>
> Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
<snip>
OK. So do you think they are clean and industrious, then? If so, where may
readers inspect the people you describe?
Garth Foster
In article <6jjal4$jln$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Albert Djungarai <adjun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
on
> > the correct answer to the question?
> >
> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
> based
> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
> >
>
> Racist barsted.
And you are a pathetic piece of scum.
Russell Dovey
Garth Foster wrote:
>
> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>
> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
> the correct answer to the question?
>
> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious - based
> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
I take offence to you, Garth. Not that you'd care, but I thought you
might like to know.
I live in Canberra. I've been to see the Aboriginal Embassy. I have no
problem with it, as there has been no violence there. Even if people
sometimes go there and get drunk, what business is it of yours? I have
this little thing called "tolerance" which means that I believe that
getting plastered on the lawns in front of Old Parliament House (which
let's face it is not exactly a high-traffic thouroughfare) is nothing to
worry about.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Always fight for your rights. Never give them up.
You can't win friends with salad.
Russell Dovey, Canberra, Australia.
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcella Caruso
Russell Dovey wrote:
>
> Garth Foster wrote:
> >
> > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> >
> > This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
> > the correct answer to the question?
> >
> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious - based
> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
> I take offence to you, Garth. Not that you'd care, but I thought you
> might like to know.
>
> I live in Canberra. I've been to see the Aboriginal Embassy. I have no
> problem with it, as there has been no violence there. Even if people
> sometimes go there and get drunk, what business is it of yours? I have
> this little thing called "tolerance" which means that I believe that
> getting plastered on the lawns in front of Old Parliament House (which
> let's face it is not exactly a high-traffic thouroughfare) is nothing to
> worry about.
Yes Russell, but you seem to have forgotten the thread topic. These
people you saw at the Aboriginal Embassy: were they clean, and were they
hard at work?
Marcella Caruso
Russell Dovey wrote:
>
> Garth Foster wrote:
> >
> > "malloc" <bro...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > OK. So do you think they are clean and industrious, then? If so, where may
> > readers inspect the people you describe?
>
> stop thinking in terms of black and white. And by the way, you don't
> inspect people, you inspect objects.
>
I think words such as "dirty" are relative, Russell. It's you who seem
to be "thinking in terms of black and white" - as if the term "dirty"
meant "as dirty as anything can possibly be".
What is the basis for your last remark that "you don't inspect people,
you inspect objects"? I have never heard of such a convention.
Ganesh
On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:37:43 +1000, "yvonne cooke"
<yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
>
>malloc wrote in message <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
>>Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>>"Do you agree or disagree?"
>>
>>
>>Disagree I'm afraid.
>>Not everyone can afford to wear a nice clean white sheet
>>like yourself, Garff.
>>
>
>Questions of said survey tell a lot more about those who authorised and
>composed the survey than any who might respond. Hope they left a space to
>tick which said "stupid adjectival of your choice question"
>
Oh, another fundamentalist.
Just how do you counter stereotypes if you don't know what they are,
guess?
I bet you'd be unhappy if the survey actually suggested that people
didn't believe Aborigines were dirty and lazy. Such a dire outcome
would mean no more self flagellation or "cranky" finger-pointing.
Ganesh
gyps...@webtv.net
What is happening to your money? And why are the bridgies dirty and
lazy?" Do ya wanna live in the states? Do y'all seriously wish to try
this nitemare of life? Do you know how lucky you are to be ST RINERS?
I've been wantin' to try your way of life.
Tom Davies
Garth Foster wrote:
>
> "Do you agree or disagree?"
> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious - based
> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
I have never seen the aboriginals outside old parliament house, and in
any case their behaviour is entirely their business and is none of mine.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
about aboriginals in general, Garth?
Tom
malloc
Garth Foster wrote in message <6jk14s$f1j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
> "malloc" <bro...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >"Do you agree or disagree?"
>>
>> Disagree I'm afraid.
><snip>
>
>OK. So do you think they are clean and industrious, then?
Sure, undoubtably many are. Unlike you I'm not going to stereotype
a whole race of people.
What exactly do you find "dirty" about them GarF, apart from the
colour of their skin?
yvonne cooke
malloc wrote in message <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
>Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>"Do you agree or disagree?"
>
>
>Disagree I'm afraid.
Tony Hancock
Garth Foster wrote:
>
> In article <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
> "malloc" <bro...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >"Do you agree or disagree?"
> >
> > Disagree I'm afraid.
>
> OK. So do you think they are clean and industrious, then?
Some industrious people get dirty as part of working hard Garth.
> If so, where may
> readers inspect the people you describe?
Butlingarra Aboriginal Corporation.
Cheers
Tony Hancock
yvonne cooke
Ganesh wrote in message <355e10e3...@news.zip.com.au>...
>On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:37:43 +1000, "yvonne cooke"
><yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>malloc wrote in message <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
>>>Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>>>"Do you agree or disagree?"
>>>
>>>
>>>Disagree I'm afraid.
>>>Not everyone can afford to wear a nice clean white sheet
>>>like yourself, Garff.
>>>
>>
>>Questions of said survey tell a lot more about those who authorised and
>>composed the survey than any who might respond. Hope they left a space to
>>tick which said "stupid adjectival of your choice question"
>>
>Oh, another fundamentalist.
>
>Just how do you counter stereotypes if you don't know what they are,
>guess?
>
>I bet you'd be unhappy if the survey actually suggested that people
>didn't believe Aborigines were dirty and lazy. Such a dire outcome
>would mean no more self flagellation or "cranky" finger-pointing.
>
>Ganesh
Not "fundamentalist" (don't know what it means). Not talking about content
but structure. To answer such a survey correctly, respondents would have to
say "no opinion" because each of the words used is judgemental and
reverberates with ethno-chauvinism, especially the use of the term
"aborigine" stripped of any meaning in the question. Mark for composition
of survey: 2/10.
Garth Foster
In article <355E212C...@whyalla.net.au>,
Tony Hancock <to...@whyalla.net.au> wrote:
>
> Garth Foster wrote:
<snip>
> > OK. So do you think they are clean and industrious, then?
>
> Some industrious people get dirty as part of working hard Garth.
A fair point. I should have said "So do you think they are clean or
industrious, then?"
> > If so, where may
> > readers inspect the people you describe?
>
> Butlingarra Aboriginal Corporation.
Where is that, and is it necessary to make an appointment before conducting
the inspection? Are the people there "official" cultural representatives,
like those camped outside Old Parliament House?
Tom Davies
Garth Foster wrote:
[snip]
> Are the people there "official" cultural representatives,
> like those camped outside Old Parliament House?
What's an "official" cultural representative, Garth?
Tom
Ganesh
>
>Ganesh wrote in message <355e10e3...@news.zip.com.au>...
>>Oh, another fundamentalist.
>>
>>Just how do you counter stereotypes if you don't know what they are,
>>guess?
>>
>>I bet you'd be unhappy if the survey actually suggested that people
>>didn't believe Aborigines were dirty and lazy. Such a dire outcome
>>would mean no more self flagellation or "cranky" finger-pointing.
>>
>>Ganesh
>
>Not "fundamentalist" (don't know what it means).
The glib reply is that a fundamentalist is one who is afraid that
somewhere some one is enjoying themselves and wants to stop it.
Otherwise fundamentalists are those who believe that they "possess"
the truth and any deviation from this "truth" is condemned. There are
Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists and now in the
western world we have environmental & racial fundamentalists.
How many times has the term "racist" been thrown at those who feel
that there is a legitimate debate to be had about Aboriginal issues
and immigration?
Seems quite reasonable to me that, if you are going to have a survey
about attitudes to aborigines and immigrants, you find out what those
attitudes are. Does it not? We can sit around and lacerate ourselves
about the connotations of a certain question in the survey but to me
that argument is about as relevant as excusing youth crime because
some teenager was not breast fed.
Ganesh
Garth Foster
In article <355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>,
tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
>
> Garth Foster wrote:
> >
> > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
based
> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
> I have never seen the aboriginals outside old parliament house, and in
> any case their behaviour is entirely their business and is none of mine.
Well, they're on public land. They style their encampment the "Aboriginal
Embassy" and ATSIC has never objected to this. Presumably, the people
concerned wish to draw their activities to your attention.
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> about aboriginals in general, Garth?
This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative of
Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
Mum
Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>
> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view
on
> the correct answer to the question?
>
> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
based
> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
I can think of quite a few white Australians who are dirty and lazy. What's
your point?
Mum
Tom Davies <t...@netspace.net.au> wrote in article
<355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>...
snipped
>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> about aboriginals in general, Garth?
>
> Tom
>
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the winos outside St Vincent De
Pauls look dirty and lazy and in need of a good bath. What does that tell
you about white Australians in general Tom?
Mum
Garth Foster
> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
based
> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
> any case their behaviour is entirely their business and is none of mine.
Well, they're on public land. They style their encampment the "Aboriginal
Embassy" and ATSIC has never objected to this. Presumably, the people
concerned wish to draw their activities to your attention.
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> about aboriginals in general, Garth?
This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative of
Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Marcella Caruso
Mum wrote:
>
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> on
> > the correct answer to the question?
> >
> based
> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >
>
> your point?
It seems plain enough to me, "Mum". The people in question are the
representatives at the Aboriginal Embassy. Go and have a look at them. I
did, and I have to say I was rather shocked at this semi-official
portrayal of indigenous culture.
Marcella Caruso
Are you serious Tom? The indigenous people in question claim to be the
Aboriginal Embassy, and this status seems to have been accepted by
indigenous spokespersons.
Tim
On Sat, 16 May 1998 06:10:44 GMT, Albert Djungarai
<adjun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>>
>> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
>> the correct answer to the question?
>>
>> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
>based
>> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
>> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>>
>
>Racist barsted.
Albert,
I agree that it is stupid and unecessarliy provocative of Garth to
post this question, but the more worrying thing is taht this was a
question off a telephone poll.
regards, Tim...
KenSiko
>> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
>> parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
>> about aboriginals in general, Garth?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the winos outside St Vincent De
>Pauls look dirty and lazy and in need of a good bath. What does that tell
>you about white Australians in general Tom?
>
>Mum
In fairness, winos are generally considered to be dirty smelly people with no
real future other than the next flaggon of sherry. There has never been an
issue of race involved. So the aboriginals who are dirty and smelly are dirty
and smelly. Is that not a fair statement, and not subject to labelling someone
a racist?
I do know many clean hard working aboriginals (a matter of pride, not race),
but I just think that the opinions being displayed here are either one way or
the other and ignoring the real facts.
Tim
>Mum wrote:
>>
>> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
>> <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > "Do you agree or disagree?"
>> >
>> > This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view
>> on
>> > the correct answer to the question?
>> >
>> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
>> based
>> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
>> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>> >
>> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>> >
>>
>> I can think of quite a few white Australians who are dirty and lazy. What's
>> your point?
>
>It seems plain enough to me, "Mum". The people in question are the
>representatives at the Aboriginal Embassy. Go and have a look at them. I
>did, and I have to say I was rather shocked at this semi-official
>portrayal of indigenous culture.
Go and watch our politicians at question time - these are the people
that are running this country and THAT should be of far more concern
to all of us!!!
regards, Tim...
>
OSRIC
>Questions of said survey tell a lot more about those who authorised and
>composed the survey than any who might respond. Hope they left a space to
>tick which said "stupid adjectival of your choice question"
Absolutely. The terms of the survey are very revealing, especially in this
case.
OSRIC
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
OSRIC
>I have never seen the aboriginals outside old parliament house, and in
>any case their behaviour is entirely their business and is none of mine.
>
>parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
>about aboriginals in general, Garth?
Absolutely nothing.
Daniel Meijer
Russell Dovey (st...@dynamite.com.au) wrote:
: I take offence to you, Garth. Not that you'd care, but I thought you
: might like to know.
Then he wrote:
: I have
: this little thing called "tolerance" which means that I believe that
: getting plastered on the lawns in front of Old Parliament House (which
: let's face it is not exactly a high-traffic thouroughfare) is nothing to
: worry about.
So, tolerance doesn't actually mean letting everyone speak their piece?
Does tolerance only apply to certain issues, like the ones close to it's
exponents' hearts?
On aboriginal issues, "tolerance" means giving the aboriginals a fair go,
but interestingly, it also involves silencing people critical of
aboriginals/atsic/etc...
--
||||||||
| ^ ^ |
(| * * |)
-----------oOOo---(__)---oOOo----------
Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
d...@zip.com.au
http://www.zip.com.au/~dm/
----------------------------------------
Peter Mackay
In article <6jkpvn$4os$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
"yvonne cooke" <yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
} malloc wrote in message <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
} >Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
} >>"Do you agree or disagree?"
} >
} >
} >Disagree I'm afraid.
} >Not everyone can afford to wear a nice clean white sheet
} >like yourself, Garff.
} >
}
} Questions of said survey tell a lot more about those who authorised and
} composed the survey than any who might respond. Hope they left a space
to
} tick which said "stupid adjectival of your choice question"
I think the point to note is that the Government is not looking for a
definite answer to the question, which is not one that can be answered
YES/NO, BTW. What they are looking for is an indication of how much
unthinking racism is out there.
We can all point to dirty, lazy Aboriginal Australians, as well as
hard-working, clean whites. And vice versa. All this means is that people
are different. Some humans are dirty, some are hard-working, some are lazy,
some are clean. BFD.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \
_\ /_ Personal opinion only
Peter Mackay
In article <6jla0c$16q$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
"yvonne cooke" <yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
} Ganesh wrote in message <355e10e3...@news.zip.com.au>...
} >On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:37:43 +1000, "yvonne cooke"
} ><yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
} >
} >>
} >>malloc wrote in message <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
} >>>Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
} >>>>"Do you agree or disagree?"
} >>>
} >>>
} >>>Disagree I'm afraid.
} >>>Not everyone can afford to wear a nice clean white sheet
} >>>like yourself, Garff.
} >>>
} >>
} >>Questions of said survey tell a lot more about those who authorised and
} >>composed the survey than any who might respond. Hope they left a space
to
} >>tick which said "stupid adjectival of your choice question"
} >>
} >Oh, another fundamentalist.
} >
} >Just how do you counter stereotypes if you don't know what they are,
} >guess?
} >
} >I bet you'd be unhappy if the survey actually suggested that people
} >didn't believe Aborigines were dirty and lazy. Such a dire outcome
} >would mean no more self flagellation or "cranky" finger-pointing.
} >
} >Ganesh
}
} Not "fundamentalist" (don't know what it means). Not talking about
content
} but structure. To answer such a survey correctly, respondents would have
to
} say "no opinion" because each of the words used is judgemental and
} reverberates with ethno-chauvinism, especially the use of the term
} "aborigine" stripped of any meaning in the question. Mark for
composition
} of survey: 2/10.
}
Bloody wake up, Yvonne! The intent of the survey is *not* to ellicit
correct answers. It is to determine attitudes.
How on earth would you propose combatting racism and intloerance, if you
don't know the numbers and the demographics? If there *is* a need then what
is the best way of spending the people's money to address it?
It's like trying to improve the quality of spelling if you don't know how
many poor spellers there are or where they may be found.
Julie Graham
Of course they were hard at work....... they were standing up for something they
believe in something more of us should do!!!!
Marcella Caruso wrote:
> Russell Dovey wrote:
> >
> > Garth Foster wrote:
> > >
> > > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> > >
> > > This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
> > > the correct answer to the question?
> > >
> > > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious - based
> > > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> > > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
> >
> > I take offence to you, Garth. Not that you'd care, but I thought you
> > might like to know.
> >
> > I live in Canberra. I've been to see the Aboriginal Embassy. I have no
> > problem with it, as there has been no violence there. Even if people
> > sometimes go there and get drunk, what business is it of yours? I have
> > this little thing called "tolerance" which means that I believe that
> > getting plastered on the lawns in front of Old Parliament House (which
> > let's face it is not exactly a high-traffic thouroughfare) is nothing to
> > worry about.
>
> Yes Russell, but you seem to have forgotten the thread topic. These
> people you saw at the Aboriginal Embassy: were they clean, and were they
> hard at work?
Julie Graham
Over the years I have met many dirty and lazy Australians of every race or creed.
I have met even more clean and industrious Australians of every race or creed!!!!
By the way Garth........ what is that obnoxious odour coming from you??????????
Garth Foster wrote:
> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>
> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view on
> the correct answer to the question?
>
> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious - based
> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
Julie Graham
Here! Here! Tim.... couldn't agree more..... that could be the next survey...
true or false.
Are Politicians dirty and lazy.
bound to be a majority vote of TRUE!!!!
Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 1998 18:25:52 +1000, Marcella Caruso
> <car...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Mum wrote:
> >>
> >> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> >> <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >> > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> >> >
> >> > This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view
> >> on
> >> > the correct answer to the question?
> >> >
> >> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
> >> based
> >> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> >> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
> >> >
> >> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> >> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >> >
> >>
MacDiarmid
In article <6jk0qt$eki$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Garth Foster
<URL:mailto:gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6jjal4$jln$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com,
Albert Djungarai <adjun...@hotmail.com wrote:
In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com,
Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com wrote:
This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have
a view on the correct answer to the question?
MacDiarmid says;
* Aborigines may be lazy and dirty. I know lots of white men the
same.
But the issue is that aborigines, although well fitted to survive in
their nomadic desert culture, are genetic timebombs to the Aryans if
they are encouraged to crossbreed. Similarly donkeys could be genetic
timebombs to pedigree horsestock except that the progeny, mules, are
sterile.
Alas, the consequences of human miscegenation are often excessively
fertile, producing offspring whose racial endowments bestowed on each
parent are in them blunted, distorted or missing. The Victorians,
replete with hundreds of years of racial experience and sexual congress
between the races, unconfused by false progaganda slogans such as
political correctness, summed it up in their succinct way. 'Halfcastes,'
they said, 'have the vices of both (races) and the virtues of neither.'*
Please don't shoot. I'm the messenger.
MacDiarmid
Happiness is enjoying life in terms of your natural bents. Napoleon
Brendan Johnston
Mum wrote:
>
> Tom Davies <t...@netspace.net.au> wrote in article
> <355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>...
>
> snipped
>
> >
> > parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> > about aboriginals in general, Garth?
> >
> >
>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the winos outside St Vincent De
> Pauls look dirty and lazy and in need of a good bath. What does that tell
> you about white Australians in general Tom?
>
> Mum
About the same.
I am sure that is what Tom was saying.
Brendan Johnston
DRS
Peter Mackay wrote in message ...
[...]
>It's like trying to improve the quality of spelling if you don't know how
>many poor spellers there are or where they may be found.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't you spend much time on Usenet? :-)
--
Beware of the Spam-Dog
yvonne cooke
Peter Mackay wrote in message ...
>In article <6jla0c$16q$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
>"yvonne cooke" <yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
>
>} Ganesh wrote in message <355e10e3...@news.zip.com.au>...
>} >On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:37:43 +1000, "yvonne cooke"
>} ><yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
>} >
>} >>
>} >>malloc wrote in message <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
>} >>>Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>} >>>>"Do you agree or disagree?"
>} >>>
>} >>>
[snip]
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \
> _\ /_ Personal opinion only
>
>pete...@netinfo.com.au
>http://www.netinfo.com.au/~petermac
I should have used the word "valid", not "correct". I agree that it is very
important to have information on amount of uninformed intolerance and racism
that may exist so that invalid stereotypes might be deconstructed. But
going by excerpts from the survey (only second hand info), the words deliver
an ethnocentric message disguised as a survey. The wording of the survey
reinforces the message. To give any answer at all would affirm the
stereotype, and most would answer "no" to the question being discussed.
Then the survey would conclude no, no racism, no stereotypes, no
ethnochauvism, we're all a happy bunch of vegemites as tolerant as can be!
Tony Hancock
> >
> > Some industrious people get dirty as part of working hard Garth.
>
> A fair point. I should have said "So do you think they are clean or
> industrious, then?"
>
> > > If so, where may
> > > readers inspect the people you describe?
> >
> > Butlingarra Aboriginal Corporation.
>
> Where is that,
It's the CDEP project in Whyalla. There's probably one a bit
closer to Brisbane.
> and is it necessary to make an appointment before conducting
> the inspection?
Inspection would not be the word that I would use, however I
dropped in without appointment and the guys showed me around
and answered all my questions.
I would suggest you lose the chip off your shoulder first.
> Are the people there "official" cultural representatives,
> like those camped outside Old Parliament House?
The premises is an old primary school which, apart from housing
the workshop facilities and serving as an operational base, is
also being turned into an aboriginal cultural centre.
The people that work there are mostly members of the extended
family group who were living a pretty much traditional existence
in this area up until the 1960s, and the project is partially
funded by ATSIC, so yeah, I guess they are "official" aborigines.
The bludging activists at the aboriginal embassy are not
representative of anyone but themselves.
Cheers
Tony Hancock
Ashraf Ghebranious
>Yes Russell, but you seem to have forgotten the thread topic. These
>people you saw at the Aboriginal Embassy: were they clean, and were they
>hard at work?
But then Marcello, you forget the reason the Embassy is there in the first
place. The One Nation/John Howard myth that decades of racism can be wiped out
with 'giving' aborigines the votes is also a myth my friend. Aborigines were
not 'given' the vote. They campaigned for neign on 30 year for it! When a
peoples cries for equality can be selectively ignored for almost a third of a
century, then the sins of our grandfathers that created the inequality in the
first place and the sins of our fathers that kept that equality in place for
as long as they could can be selectively ignored based on the fact that
aborigines do not meet our idea of hygeine.
Why dont you let me take away everything you own, everything you were and
everything you will ever be and see where your offspring are in 200 years.
Ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
**************************************************************************
Nev..
Marcella Caruso <car...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
<<SNIP>>
->
-> Yes Russell, but you seem to have forgotten the thread topic. These
-> people you saw at the Aboriginal Embassy: were they clean, and were they
-> hard at work?
Marcella,
Are you inferring that noone who works in an embasy is a "worker" ??
Nev..
(Please forgive me for failing to answer the original question in this
thread.)
remove the xxx from email address to reply
blame the spammers for the inconvenience
Ashraf Ghebranious
In article <6jlfk0$65n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Where is that, and is it necessary to make an appointment before conducting
>the inspection? Are the people there "official" cultural representatives,
>like those camped outside Old Parliament House?
Do you pass as a representative of your race? Do you pass
for being any more or less human than aborigines and why. What makes you any
better to reperesent you kind than Adolf Hitler or Martin Bryant.
What gives you the right to decide if an aboriginal community are aboriginal
enough for you? What makes you the mouth piece Garth? Extra long penis
perhaps? Or an extra small one?
Ashraf Ghebranious
>This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative of
>Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
Generalisation time...
Hitler kills 6 million jews. Therefore if you at a BBQ with white folks, dont
let them do the cooking.
Is that the kind of general cultural behaviour you mean Garth?
Or the use of atomic weapons on people. perfectly justified unless they are
white. Is that kind of the cultural behaviour you mean Garth?
Or how about the introduction of Slavery. What a great white idea!
Or the mass slaughter of aborigines and american indians.
Is that the kind of cultural significance you need before you are considered
humans by anglo saxons?
Is that the kind of cultural significance you need to qualify as human
where you got hatched Garth?
Marcella Caruso
Julie Graham wrote:
>
> Here! Here! Tim.... couldn't agree more..... that could be the next survey...
> true or false.
> Are Politicians dirty and lazy.
>
> bound to be a majority vote of TRUE!!!!
What you seem to be saying, Julie, is "Let's not talk about Aborigines;
let's talk about politicians." I think this sort of response is called
"avoidance".
Garth Foster
In article <355F71E9...@whyalla.net.au>,
Tony Hancock <to...@whyalla.net.au> wrote:
<snip>
> The bludging activists at the aboriginal embassy are not
> representative of anyone but themselves.
Well why doesn't ATSIC say so? Then the whole mess could be carted off to the
dump.
Marcella Caruso
Nev.. wrote:
>
> Marcella Caruso <car...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>
> <<SNIP>>
> ->
> -> Yes Russell, but you seem to have forgotten the thread topic. These
> -> people you saw at the Aboriginal Embassy: were they clean, and were they
> -> hard at work?
>
> Marcella,
>
> Are you inferring that noone who works in an embasy is a "worker" ??
No. Nor do I see how such an inference could be drawn from what I said.
Garth Foster
In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>,
ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
<snip>
> When a peoples cries for equality can be selectively ignored for almost a
> third of a century, then the sins of our grandfathers that created the
> inequality in the
> first place and the sins of our fathers that kept that equality in place for
> as long as they could can be selectively ignored based on the fact that
> aborigines do not meet our idea of hygeine.
So you think Aborigines are dirty (as judged by "our idea of hygiene")?
Ashraf Ghebranious
>It seems plain enough to me, "Mum". The people in question are the
>representatives at the Aboriginal Embassy. Go and have a look at them. I
>did, and I have to say I was rather shocked at this semi-official
>portrayal of indigenous culture.
I like people like you Marcello with their selective eyesight.
You see the fallen tree and mess the tree is making, but you dont seem to
care who sawed the tree off.
Point to make Marcello is there were no drunken aborigines BEFORE the arrival
of white 'civilised' culture.
What you see Marcello is what was done to a people by civilised folk.
But thats all in the past wasn't it Marcello? Or was it? Why is the Wik
decision dangerous for the government Marcello? Legally, the land is theirs.
It has never been negotiated for. It was taken.
By the way Marcello, do you know why the Embassy is there?
Mikey C
<crap slashed>
I really hope that you are not serious....I really do......
"Policial Correctness" was invented by the PR firms in the ultra-right
wing section of the Republican Party in the USA and was used in several
election campagins. It was backed up by figures created by the Chicago
Institue of Economics - a rebulbican think-tank that also created
"economic rationalism". It's a more vocal equivalent of Australia's
"Lyons Forum"
basically, their all a bunch of assholes that would be happiest if the
world reverted to a slavocracy.
Mikey C
Mikey C
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>
> In article <6jlfk0$65n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Where is that, and is it necessary to make an appointment before conducting
> >the inspection? Are the people there "official" cultural representatives,
> >like those camped outside Old Parliament House?
>
> Do you pass as a representative of your race? Do you pass
> for being any more or less human than aborigines and why. What makes you any
> better to reperesent you kind than Adolf Hitler or Martin Bryant.
>
> What gives you the right to decide if an aboriginal community are aboriginal
> enough for you? What makes you the mouth piece Garth? Extra long penis
> perhaps? Or an extra small one?
>
> Ashraf
>
Well said Ashraf!
Mikey C
Scott Steel
Well, this is in aus.pol.
Maybe your after aus.aboriginal.downward.envy ?
Cheers!
Scott Steel
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."
-Winston Churchill-
remove "management." for successful communication.
Peter Mackay
In article <6jn6pr$reb$1...@toto.tig.com.au>,
"DRS" <simp...@removethis.tig.com.au> wrote:
} Peter Mackay wrote in message ...
}
} [...]
}
} >It's like trying to improve the quality of spelling if you don't know
how
} >many poor spellers there are or where they may be found.
}
}
}
} ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
} Don't you spend much time on Usenet? :-)
ops! Sory. Pleese frgive.
Peter Mackay
In article <6jneod$knv$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
"yvonne cooke" <yco...@enter.net.au> wrote:
The idea of having a survey is to actually get some numbers, not rely on
preconceptions such as you have just used.
Ashraf Ghebranious
>In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>,
> ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
><snip>
>> When a peoples cries for equality can be selectively ignored for almost a
>> third of a century, then the sins of our grandfathers that created the
>> inequality in the
>> first place and the sins of our fathers that kept that equality in place for
>> as long as they could can be selectively ignored based on the fact that
>> aborigines do not meet our idea of hygeine.
>So you think Aborigines are dirty (as judged by "our idea of hygiene")?
Yes oh yessy yess yess.
Your ancestors Garth I assume came from England. There people lived in their
own shit for centuries and that was considered 'civilised'.
You look at aboriginals sitting by a fire and you say to yourself
'disgraceful'. Why?
Why does that annoy you?
I can walk into a pub and see drunks in worse states than any aboriginal you
can describe. Or a B&S and watch them get drunk and go round in utes.
Apparently whites getting drunk does not upset you as much as aboriginals
getting drunk.
Why can not people understand that they prefer to drink in public where as we
prefer to drink in private buildings or at home. Why does drinking in public
make you lazy and dirty and drinking in a pub a bit of fun?
They like to be in open spaces when they drink. We like to be in enclosed ones.
And any medico will tell you that to be in open fresh air is much more
hygeinic than in a closed in space.
Why is it a crime to drink in public and okay albeit normal to get drunk and
get 'legless' with your mates in a pub while you search for girls to root??
KenSiko
In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
>>So you think Aborigines are dirty (as judged by "our idea of hygiene")?
>
>Yes oh yessy yess yess.
>
>Your ancestors Garth I assume came from England. There people lived in their
>own shit for centuries and that was considered 'civilised'.
Lived in their own shit? Somehow I cant see the birittish as having lived in
conditions like bangladesh. But perhaps you are a step closer to realising
that the brittish oppressed many people in their quest for power. Including
those who they _sent_ over here.
>You look at aboriginals sitting by a fire and you say to yourself
>'disgraceful'. Why?
Sitting by a fire? You certainly like to twist things. The brittish lived in
shit for centuries, and the aboriginals all sit by fires, causing outrage. Im
afraid that isnt the case in many situations.
I have no idea what it is like at the 'embassy', but I have learnt from
experience over the years to avoid large mobs of drunks sitting in groups on
the outskirts of cities. being hounded by 'winos' of any race and then abused
is not pleasant, but moreso when usually accompanied by physical violence, or
at least threats of it.
>Why does that annoy you?
Simply sitting by a fire would hardly be the reason for annoying anyone, and
you know it.
>I can walk into a pub and see drunks in worse states than any aboriginal you
>can describe. Or a B&S and watch them get drunk and go round in utes.
So now they are _drunks_ sitting by a fire. Seperate the facts as to lessen
the impact of the entire statement?
But you also realise that pubs are there to cater for drunks. Certainly not
everyone who goes to a pub is going to get blotto. In public it is generally
illegal to drink. People who di it, are likely to get arrested, no matter what
race. But only some will say it is a racial issue and scream racism.
Unfortunately the ignorant do-gooder bleeding heart's will agree, without
knowing any facts.
>Apparently whites getting drunk does not upset you as much as aboriginals
>getting drunk.
you see what you want to see just as the other twits. I would avoid a large
conglomerate of winos no matter what race they were, and I would assume it
goes for most people who prefer not to be verbally assaulted. BUT - and this
is where you will foam at the mouth in ignorance - I have seen a lot more
Groups of unruley drunken aboriginals in the city than whites, or any other
people.
As you know Aboriginals feel the need to care for the extended family members
too. So it isnt just 3 or 4 in most cases, but entire families, with uncles,
cousins, etc.etc. right down to 11 and 12 year old kids.
>Why can not people understand that they prefer to drink in public where as we
>prefer to drink in private buildings or at home.
Why are there laws prohibiting drinking in public - By anyone?
> Why does drinking in public
>make you lazy and dirty and drinking in a pub a bit of fun?
Why does not being clean and living off the dole with no intentions for
working make you lazy and dirty, and going to the pub for a few drinks after
work a bit of fun? The Drunks who make it a habbit to rock up to a pub at
8:30am and sit there till 8pm are obviously no better than any other hopeless
drunk.
>They like to be in open spaces when they drink. We like to be in enclosed ones.
Drinking is often said to be a major cause of health problems and low self
esteem for many people. Are you saying we should let anyone who wants to drink
in public do so because they prefer to waste their lives there?
>And any medico will tell you that to be in open fresh air is much more
>hygeinic than in a closed in space.
Any medico will tell you that excessive drinking will be a lot worse for you.
Do you have a valid point, or are you simply trying to make excuses?
>Why is it a crime to drink in public and okay albeit normal to get drunk and
>get 'legless' with your mates in a pub while you search for girls to root??
Ahh you dont know the law. Street drinking is perhaps there to stop people
getting drunk and becoming violent in public. Perhaps it is discrimination
against drinkers. All I know, is everyone is bound by it, and not everyone
feels a need to complain about it.
KenSiko
>>What you seem to be saying, Julie, is "Let's not talk about Aborigines;
>>let's talk about politicians." I think this sort of response is called
>>"avoidance".
>
>Well, this is in aus.pol.
>Maybe your after aus.aboriginal.downward.envy ?
You can always tell the ignorant racists.. they are the ones who avoid facts
to make their ignorant statements appealing to other ignorant racists
incapable of having a factual discussion.
KenSiko
In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
>I like people like you Marcello with their selective eyesight.
Selective eyesight would be preferrable to being blind.
>You see the fallen tree and mess the tree is making, but you dont seem to
>care who sawed the tree off.
Who saws the limbs off the white trees then? Why is alcoholism specifically
an aboriginal problem created by whites?
Dont tell me, you think that a white alcoholic is responsible for his own
problems, but the entire white race is responsible for oppressing the
aboriginals with alcohol, in a way to keep them in their place?
Im sick of people making excuses for other peoples problems.
And you talk about generalising.
>What you see Marcello is what was done to a people by civilised folk.
How was it done. I didnt give the aboriginals the alcohol. Or am i guilty just
by association?
Hunter
In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
> <car...@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>
>Why dont you let me take away everything you own, everything you were and
>everything you will ever be and see where your offspring are in 200 years.
>
Sort of like the poms did to the people that they deported here in the first
place huh?
Hunter
In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
>
Actually I'm white and I prefer to drink in public too. Do you know what a
stereotype is?
Andrea
>
> This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a view
on
> the correct answer to the question?
>
> For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
based
> on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old Parliament
> House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
How about this one?
White people have big noses and bad table manners. Personally, I agree.
Today I saw at least fifteen white people with big noses, and several more
not cleaning up after themselves in restaurants. This enables me to come to
this clearly correct conclusion.
See how stupid you sound?
Julie Graham
Well said Ashraf!!!!!
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
> In article <355D9...@dynamite.com.au> Marcella Caruso <car...@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>
> >Yes Russell, but you seem to have forgotten the thread topic. These
> >people you saw at the Aboriginal Embassy: were they clean, and were they
> >hard at work?
>
> But then Marcello, you forget the reason the Embassy is there in the first
> place. The One Nation/John Howard myth that decades of racism can be wiped out
> with 'giving' aborigines the votes is also a myth my friend. Aborigines were
> not 'given' the vote. They campaigned for neign on 30 year for it! When a
> peoples cries for equality can be selectively ignored for almost a third of a
> century, then the sins of our grandfathers that created the inequality in the
> first place and the sins of our fathers that kept that equality in place for
> as long as they could can be selectively ignored based on the fact that
> aborigines do not meet our idea of hygeine.
>
> Why dont you let me take away everything you own, everything you were and
> everything you will ever be and see where your offspring are in 200 years.
>
Julie Graham
Oh KenSiko....... you do hurt my feelings!!!!
What I would like to know KenSiko especially since I am so ignorant...... have you
actually ever studied the aboriginal people??? Have you lived amongst those who have
choosen and might I add be allowed to live in their old traditional way? these people
are far from dirty and lazy, they are indeed clean and industrious. Hence why they can
live in areas of Australia where the ignorant yuppies like yourself would very quickly
die. Instead of trying to force these people to live what some of us conceive as
"civilised" you should try and get off you soapbox and get informed. A lot of them may
choose to live differently from ourselves but that doesn't mean the way they choose to
live is wrong.
I have lived in Alice Springs for many years and come across thousands of groups of
drunks of all creeds and I can tell you the aborigines have never every made me fell
threatened if anything they would be happy if you joined them in a chat whether you
drink or not, or indeed if you didn't want to chat with them they are again not
bothered.
Because unlike people like your self they are happy to accept we are all different and
should be free to move about as we please so long as no one is hurting each other.
So KenSiko I think it is you who is the ignorant racist and that you should get of your
soapbox and look around you..... why should these people live by the rules of an
invading culture? Why can't they live as they have always traditional done? Just because
you live in such a narrow minded state that you think your way is better then theirs and
that we should all conform to the "modern, progressive times" doesn't make you an
informed racist just an ignorant one!!!!!
KenSiko
In article <35602DC9...@aussie.u-net.com>, Julie Graham <gra...@aussie.u-net.com> wrote:
>Oh KenSiko....... you do hurt my feelings!!!!
That was not my intention at all.
>What I would like to know KenSiko especially since I am so ignorant...... have
> you
>actually ever studied the aboriginal people???
I dont consider aboriginals to be an item to be studied. I treat people based
on how they act. I have grown up around aboriginals. I have aboriginal mates,
mainly from the streets of perth, but moreso my relatives. City aboriginals
are a far cry from outback aboriginals. I would have thought someone who
'studies' them would at least be able to see that.
> Have you lived amongst those who
> have
>choosen and might I add be allowed to live in their old traditional way? these
> people
>are far from dirty and lazy, they are indeed clean and industrious.
Again you see only what you want to see. Where have I said that they are
anything other? I said there are human rights organisations that consider that
theire living conditions are worse than 3'rd world countries. I have made no
judgement on them for how they live, if they live in a traditional style. I
Have said that when any group of people sit around all day, never wash, live
off the dole with no intentions of working, then they are lazy and dirty, be
them of any race. But that doesnt work too well for you, so you see only what
you want to see.
Do you agree with segregation?
>Hence why
> they can
>live in areas of Australia where the ignorant yuppies like yourself would very
> quickly
>die.
BWAHAhAHA thats the funniest thing I have EVER read. Is everyone who considers
the views expressed by you and your kind to be laughable, an ignorant yuppie?
Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that I am a yuppie., not
that i expect it to be based on anything other than your inability to read.
> Instead of trying to force these people to live what some of us conceive
> as
>"civilised" you should try and get off you soapbox and get informed.
Oh far from it. It is you who needs to get informed. About many things.
For one, you assume once again, that I think that the aboriginals should be
forced to live as 'civilised' people. I would love you to tell my cousin how
he somehow doesnt live as a civilised person, considering he gets up at 5am
and goes to work to feed his wife and 4 kids, and has no problems with todays
society. he is BTW a nyungar.
Now, Do you consider that there are some people who do live on the dole, with
no future job prospects, and who basically stink? If they are white people,
is that their own fault and no one elses or not? Now if they are aboriginal,
is that their fault and no one elses or not?
I will say it again, so as to not confuse you, as you seem to not be able to
read with both eyes. Drunken slobs exist in every race. For you to exempt
aboriginals from that scenario simply because they are aboriginals, is absurd.
> A lot of
> them may
>choose to live differently from ourselves but that doesn't mean the way they
> choose to
>live is wrong.
Where have I said otherwise. Another case of youre need for bifocals.
>I have lived in Alice Springs for many years and come across thousands of
> groups of
>drunks of all creeds and I can tell you the aborigines have never every made me
> fell
>threatened if anything they would be happy if you joined them in a chat whether
> you
>drink or not, or indeed if you didn't want to chat with them they are again not
>bothered.
Good for you. Now do the same in a major city, and approach drunks of all
creeds and tell us if you get the same reaction. I have met many drunks in the
city. Generally it isnt a pleasant thing. But that is not to say everyone I
have met has been an arsehole. and that DOES go for aboriginals too.
>Because unlike people like your self they are happy to accept we are all
> different and
>should be free to move about as we please so long as no one is hurting each
> other.
Youre just a one eyed twit, just like all the one eyed twits who stroll into
this newsgroup and start attacking people whos opinion differs from yours, and
fail to even understand their point of veiw at all.
So if i say people should be proud of their culture, then that is being
unwilling to accept we are all different?
I will ask you once again. Do you agree with segregation?
>So KenSiko I think it is you who is the ignorant racist and that you should get
> of your
>soapbox and look around you.....
I am merely replying to the ignorant idiots who post racist, diversive views
in this newsgroup. I certainly did not start this thread. So if anyone is
standing on a soapbox, it is you. As for looking around.. well, thats a joke
coming from someone who thinks that aboriginals are a topic for study, and not
a diverse race of people, many of whom are capable of living quite hapily in
todays society, without handouts, and without the ignorance of racist who
think they know whats good for them, leading them into a more and more
segregated society..
> why should these people live by the rules of
> an
>invading culture?
How is it still an invding culture.. After 200 years it is quite apparant that
there is no going back. It seems you would have racial oppression and tension
for another 200 years, rather than a society that agrees that tollerance of
culture is needed, and not bending rules for each persons whims.
> Why can't they live as they have always traditional done?
Ugh... for crying out loud. Where have i said they should not be allowed to
live as they traditionally have done. I have absolutely nothing against people
who choose to live as they please. But people who would perpetually sit on the
dole, and get drunk every day and blame everyone else for their problems,
are not living in a traditional manner. It does happen, and it does happen by
aboriginals, as it happens in many cultures in australia. It is not acceptable
for other cultures, so why should it be acceptable for aboriginals.
Your continued acceptance of this behavoiour is absurd.
> Just because
>you live in such a narrow minded state that you think your way is better then
> theirs and
>that we should all conform to the "modern, progressive times" doesn't make you
> an
>informed racist just an ignorant one!!!!!
Oh shut up you petty little one eyed racist moron.
That was intedned as an insult, so please feel jusitfyably insulted you
cretin.
Tim
> In article <6jo870$e4q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >So you think Aborigines are dirty (as judged by "our idea of hygiene")?
>
> Yes oh yessy yess yess.
>
> Your ancestors Garth I assume came from England. There people lived in their
> own shit for centuries and that was considered 'civilised'.
Oh dear, here we go.....
1. With a name like 'Foster', Garth's ancestors are more likely to
have come from Scotland.
2. With a name like Ashraf, Ashraf's ancestors are likely to have come
from the Indian subcontinent. A not very uncommon occurrence for
newly arrived Asian immigrants in the UK was to shit in the back
garden, which was really great if you happened to be sitting in your
own back garden next door enjoying the scent of the flowers on a sunny
afternoon, say. Yes, this really did happen here - I speak from
experience. Every day, granny used to come and fertilise the
vegetable patch.
The point of this message is that there is no point in criticising one
race or another for what one's own race considers to be bad habits.
Each race has its own habits, and that is what makes the world such an
interesting place. There is no place for racism per se, as set out
by both Garth and Ashraf.
Criticise criminal behaviour and behaviour which has a negative affect
on the life of fellow human beings, by all means, but please don't
criticise behaviour on account of race.
Try using some tolerance.
Peace,
Tim
delete the 'j' in 'clarjach' to reply
KenSiko
>Criticise criminal behaviour and behaviour which has a negative affect
>on the life of fellow human beings, by all means, but please don't
>criticise behaviour on account of race.
>
>Try using some tolerance.
This is the most coherent thing I have seen in this newsgroup in a very long
time.
Thank you Tim.
Streaker
Daniel Miejer (d...@zip.com.au ) wrote
>On aboriginal issues, "tolerance" means giving the aboriginals a fair >go,
but interestingly, it also involves silencing people critical of
>aboriginals/atsic/etc...
So all the Aboriginals that are critical of ATSIC (many) are intollerant?
Makes sense to me!!!
Streaker
Russell Dovey
Marcella Caruso wrote:
>
> Russell Dovey wrote:
> >
> > Garth Foster wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <6jjjun$sp4$1...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
> > > "malloc" <bro...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Garth Foster wrote in message <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > > >"Do you agree or disagree?"
> > > >
> > > > Disagree I'm afraid.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > OK. So do you think they are clean and industrious, then? If so, where may
> > > readers inspect the people you describe?
> >
> > They are probably somewhere in between, like the rest of us. You should
> > stop thinking in terms of black and white. And by the way, you don't
> > inspect people, you inspect objects.
> >
>
> I think words such as "dirty" are relative, Russell. It's you who seem
> to be "thinking in terms of black and white" - as if the term "dirty"
> meant "as dirty as anything can possibly be".
Asking if a person is dirty and lazy is pretty clear-cut.
>
> What is the basis for your last remark that "you don't inspect people,
> you inspect objects"? I have never heard of such a convention.
I meant that a person's dignity requires them to be treated like
autonomous human beings, not objects to be approved or disapproved.
Garth seemed to think that I keep Aborigines in a pen in the back yard
and charge people for entry. I find that concept offensive.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Always fight for your rights. Never give them up.
You can't win friends with salad.
Russell Dovey, Canberra, Australia.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim
>Julie Graham wrote:
>>
>> Here! Here! Tim.... couldn't agree more..... that could be the next survey...
>> true or false.
>> Are Politicians dirty and lazy.
>>
>> bound to be a majority vote of TRUE!!!!
>
>What you seem to be saying, Julie, is "Let's not talk about Aborigines;
>let's talk about politicians." I think this sort of response is called
>"avoidance".
How do you come to that conclusion? In it's own way Julie's response
is talking about the aborigines in the fact that she is in agreement
with my statement concerning our politicians - to whit:
-----------------------------------------
first Mum said:
>> I can think of quite a few white Australians who are dirty and lazy. What's
>> your point?
>
and then.... aaaah, I see the problem now... it was YOU who said:
>It seems plain enough to me, "Mum". The people in question are the
>representatives at the Aboriginal Embassy. Go and have a look at them. I
>did, and I have to say I was rather shocked at this semi-official
>portrayal of indigenous culture.
Go and watch our politicians at question time - these are the people
that are running this country and THAT should be of far more concern
to all of us!!!
regards, Tim...
-----------------------------------------
Now I understand...you took exception to the fact that Julie was in
fact indirectly placing the aborigines in a good light as opposed to
our politicians.
regards, Tim...
>
kenl...@hotmail.com
In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> the correct answer to the question?
A better question would be...what is a reasonable and appropriate response to
somebody who asks a question for the obvious purpose of instilling bigotry in
others, in a country where such actions (hate groups) are illegal.
I think that the people who ran the phone survey were breaking the law because
of their obvious intent to foment hate, qualifying them as a hate group.
Louis A. DENGER
Albert Djungarai wrote in message <6jjal4$jln$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Do you agree or disagree?"
>>
==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
This is a futile question.
How can you bother the people with something like that?
Mum
KenSiko <ken...@irc.assassination.org> wrote in article
<6jm7ha$ha5$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au>...
>
> >> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> >> parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> >> about aboriginals in general, Garth?
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >
> >Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the winos outside St Vincent
De
> >Pauls look dirty and lazy and in need of a good bath. What does that
tell
> >you about white Australians in general Tom?
> >
> >Mum
>
> In fairness, winos are generally considered to be dirty smelly people
with no
> real future other than the next flaggon of sherry. There has never been
an
> issue of race involved. So the aboriginals who are dirty and smelly are
dirty
> and smelly. Is that not a fair statement, and not subject to labelling
someone
> a racist?
>
> I do know many clean hard working aboriginals (a matter of pride, not
race),
> but I just think that the opinions being displayed here are either one
way or
> the other and ignoring the real facts.
>
***What I was trying to point out was that just because he sees one group
of Aboriginals who look like they are dirty and smelly doesn't mean he has
to label them all that way. There are many alcoholics who are also dirty
and smelly but not everyone who is an alcoholic is that way. You have good
and bad in everyone, whether they be green, pink or purple so you can't
label the whole race the same on just a few examples.
Mum.
Mum
Marcella Caruso <car...@dynamite.com.au> wrote in article
<355E9F...@dynamite.com.au>...
> Mum wrote:
> >
> > Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> > >
> > > This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a
view
> > on
> > > the correct answer to the question?
> > >
> > > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious
-
> > based
> > > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old
Parliament
> > > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
> > >
> > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
==-----
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based
newsreading
> > >
> >
> > I can think of quite a few white Australians who are dirty and lazy.
What's
> > your point?
>
> It seems plain enough to me, "Mum". The people in question are the
> representatives at the Aboriginal Embassy. Go and have a look at them. I
> did, and I have to say I was rather shocked at this semi-official
> portrayal of indigenous culture.
>
***All well and good but you can't label the whole race that way just based
on your observations of the embassy people. In my opinion they shouldn't be
there in the first place but I don't want to get involved in that one. :-)
Mum
Timmy the Mediocre
kenl...@hotmail.com wrote in article <6jsfck$3u3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <6jir1a$vkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> >
> > This was a question in a recent telephone survey. Does anyone have a
view on
> > the correct answer to the question?
>
> A better question would be...what is a reasonable and appropriate
response to
> somebody who asks a question for the obvious purpose of instilling
bigotry in
> others, in a country where such actions (hate groups) are illegal.
>
> I think that the people who ran the phone survey were breaking the law
because
> of their obvious intent to foment hate, qualifying them as a hate group.
Bullshit. A stupid question yes. Intended to 'summon' hate. No.
It assumes, yet again, that respondents are usually morons who will form a
concrete opinion ushered in by a single question. Ahhhh, the knee-jerk
reaction, always the other guy with the twitch right?
Tim
Scott Hillard
On 18 May 98 12:41:14 GMT, "Andrea" <and...@space.net.au> wrote:
>How about this one?
>White people have big noses and bad table manners.
Sure signs of good breeding - what are you, some coon pov?
>Personally, I agree.
Race traitor - you'll burn in hell alongside Bob Hawke and Abe
Lincoln.
>Today I saw at least fifteen white people with big noses, and several more
>not cleaning up after themselves in restaurants.
White people, accustomed to dining out (as opposed to sneezing in the
"all you can eat" after the dole cheque comes in) know that
restaurants pay people to clean up after you.
>This enables me to come to this clearly correct conclusion.
This way to de-lousing.
----------
Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are even stronger, but truth will conquer all.
Tom Davies
Marcella Caruso wrote:
>
> Tom Davies wrote:
> >
> > Garth Foster wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Are the people there "official" cultural representatives,
> > > like those camped outside Old Parliament House?
> >
> >
> > Tom
>
> Are you serious Tom?
Yes.
> The indigenous people in question claim to be the
> Aboriginal Embassy, and this status seems to have been accepted by
> indigenous spokespersons.
They 'claim to be the Aboriginal Embassy'? So what?
And this 'seems' to have been accepted by 'indigenous spokespersons'?
What mandate do these spokespersons have?
How can you simply accept that someone officially represents a culture?
Who's your offical cultural representative?
Tom
Tom Davies
Garth Foster wrote:
>
> In article <355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>,
> tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
[snip]
> > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> > parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> > about aboriginals in general, Garth?
>
> Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
If you really believe that, you are a fool. How can a few people, no
matter what they style themselves, be 'representative' of a culture?
Tom
Brendan Johnston
Tom Davies wrote:
>
> How can you simply accept that someone officially represents a culture?
> Who's your offical cultural representative?
Queenslanders have Mal Colston as their official representative.
>
> Tom
Brendan Johnston
KenSiko
>> I do know many clean hard working aboriginals (a matter of pride, not
>race),
>> but I just think that the opinions being displayed here are either one
>way or
>> the other and ignoring the real facts.
>>
>
>***What I was trying to point out was that just because he sees one group
>of Aboriginals who look like they are dirty and smelly doesn't mean he has
>to label them all that way. There are many alcoholics who are also dirty
>and smelly but not everyone who is an alcoholic is that way. You have good
>and bad in everyone, whether they be green, pink or purple so you can't
>label the whole race the same on just a few examples.
Exactly, but he wasnt actually labelling them all that way, or I missed a
post. All I saw was a question asking 'who thinks all aboriginals are lazy and
dirty' or something along that line. The problem here is, people who ask those
questions are not ultimately racist, yet they get that label simply for
asking. Usually by people who are jsut as extreme, but 'on the other side' so
to speak.
KenSiko
In article <35636036...@netspace.net.au>, tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
>How can you simply accept that someone officially represents a culture?
>Who's your offical cultural representative?
>
I personally think that embassy rep's are completely out of touch with the
culture in question. Look at alexander downer, for an example! :)
Tom Davies
> > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> > parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> > about aboriginals in general, Garth?
>
> This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative of
> Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
So the Australian ambassador to the UK (for instance) eats meat pies for
dinner and drives a Holden?
I don't follow your reasoning.
Tom
Garth Foster
In article <35662C49...@netspace.net.au>,
Well, I think it's plain enough, and I don't want to waste my time. But if
anyone else wants further explanation, I shall give it.
Andrea
> > I think words such as "dirty" are relative, Russell. It's you who seem
> > to be "thinking in terms of black and white" - as if the term "dirty"
> > meant "as dirty as anything can possibly be".
>
> Asking if a person is dirty and lazy is pretty clear-cut.
>
It's not really. One person's dirty is perfectly acceptable to another.
What right therefore do we have to say that the first person's idea of
truth is correct? You may just be trying to provoke discussion, but must
you be so offensive and reductive? Such statements are only going to
encourage people who look at things in their own narrowly focussed way to
continue to do so, and is not going to foster any further understanding of
Aboriginal Australian issues, which is surely the first thing which must be
achieved if any of the problems, which members of the Australian wider
community have expressed here in this newsgroup, are to be addressed.
Bill Evans
On Sat, 23 May 1998 03:33:51 GMT, Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+In article <35662C49...@netspace.net.au>,
+ tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
+>
+> Garth Foster wrote:
+> >
+> > In article <355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>,
+> > tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
+>
+> > > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
+> > > parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
+> > > about aboriginals in general, Garth?
+> >
+> > This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative
+of
+> > Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
+>
+> So the Australian ambassador to the UK (for instance) eats meat pies for
+> dinner and drives a Holden?
+>
+> I don't follow your reasoning.
+
+Well, I think it's plain enough, and I don't want to waste my time. But if
+anyone else wants further explanation, I shall give it.
+
I have to speak here in very general terms, so those who are the
exceptions, please forgive me in advance.
When considering the lifestyles and standards of aboriginal people
compared to non aboriginals, we have to look at the starting points.
As recently as 3 generations ago, the bulk of aboriginal people were
still living their tradition hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Non
aboriginals had, over several thousand years developed into an
industrial/agrarian lifestyle. In 3 generations, aboriginal people
have progressed through stages of social development to about the same
level as existed in Europe about 200 years ago.
That is a massive leap. In another 2 or 3 generations they should,
given appropriate assistance, be right up with the rest of us. Be
patient people, and try to understand what you are asking.
Bill Evans
remove underpants to email
UIN 4883874
Dave Garner
Tom Davies <t...@netspace.net.au> writes:
>Garth Foster wrote:
>>
>> In article <355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>,
>> tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
>> > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
>> > parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
>> > about aboriginals in general, Garth?
>>
>> This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative of
>> Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
>So the Australian ambassador to the UK (for instance) eats meat pies for
>dinner and drives a Holden?
>I don't follow your reasoning.
You have never had the pleasure of meeting Sir Les Patterson then,
I take it.?
I have. Delighful fellow. And so is Dame Edna.
d.
--
--
MacDiarmid
> > Asking if a person is dirty and lazy is pretty clear-cut.
> >
> It's not really. One person's dirty is perfectly acceptable to another.
>
*You know, she's right. Niggergirls stiffen their hair with cowshit but
still do all right at the Friday night Rape Disco.
>
-- MacDiarmid
When one traces back the ideas which have formed the culture of the
modern world, one usually finds an author,sitting alone in his room,
writing a book. Wm Rees-Mogg
MacDiarmid
> When considering the lifestyles and standards of aboriginal people
> compared to non aboriginals, we have to look at the starting points.
> As recently as 3 generations ago, the bulk of aboriginal people were
> still living their tradition hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Non
> aboriginals had, over several thousand years developed into an
> industrial/agrarian lifestyle. In 3 generations, aboriginal people
> have progressed through stages of social development to about the same
> level as existed in Europe about 200 years ago.
>
> That is a massive leap. In another 2 or 3 generations they should,
> given appropriate assistance, be right up with the rest of us. Be
> patient people, and try to understand what you are asking.
>
> Bill Evans
*O hahahaha, Billy boy, what a comic you are! So the abos are now at
the level of Sir Isaac Newton's life and times, are they? Any Abo
Voltaires turned up yet? Sorry, let's be fair, go back a little bit
more. Come now, there must be an Abo Copernicus - an Abo Galileo?*
* Billy boy, what are you saying here? How about Abo Plato? Well,
Abo Diogenes, he lived in a barrel over 2000 years ago, not 200. So the
abos are well past the Ancient Greeks, according to you.*
*The abos are well past the level of my dog, Billy boy. Well past it.
No doubt about it. Now, let's see, what comes after dog.....*
*You and those you may be trying to influence do the aborigine people
no service by pushing this line of semi-literate nonsense, Mr Evans. As
the children of Homo Erectus, as are we all, they deserve better. They
deserve, for instance, being taken at their own valuation, not ours.*
Richard Hickling
> > The indigenous people in question claim to be the
> > Aboriginal Embassy, and this status seems to have been accepted by
> > indigenous spokespersons.
> They 'claim to be the Aboriginal Embassy'? So what?
> And this 'seems' to have been accepted by 'indigenous spokespersons'?
> What mandate do these spokespersons have?
> Who's your offical cultural representative?
You're right, a culture can not really be represented. However, by
claiming to be the 'Aboriginal Embassy' they are demonstrating that here
'culture' is really a euphemism for 'nation' - a position that few
activists dare to directly articulate. That there is an Aboriginal nation
can be shown, and it's existence is slowly being realised.
The sooner the better.
Tom Davies
Garth Foster wrote:
>
> In article <35662C49...@netspace.net.au>,
> tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
> >
> > Garth Foster wrote:
> > > This being their "Embassy", it tells me this exhibition is representative
> of
> > > Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
> >
> > So the Australian ambassador to the UK (for instance) eats meat pies for
> > dinner and drives a Holden?
> >
> > I don't follow your reasoning.
>
Garth has realised that he's talking drivel. Thank goodness for that.
Tom
DRS
Richard Hickling wrote in message <356931E6...@eurocontrol.fr>...
If each tribe is a nation then there about 500+ of them. The idea of a
single Aboriginal nation is one thing they don't mind taking from the white
fella.
--
Beware of the Spam-Dog
Anar...@my-dejanews.com
> > tom_d...@poboxes.com wrote:
>
> > > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> > > parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> > > about aboriginals in general, Garth?
> >
of
> > Aboriginal culture in general. OK?
Abos are the same as our American Niggers
>
> So the Australian ambassador to the UK (for instance) eats meat pies for
> dinner and drives a Holden?
>
> I don't follow your reasoning.
>
> Tom
britz
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Richard Hickling wrote:
> You're right, a culture can not really be represented. However, by
> claiming to be the 'Aboriginal Embassy' they are demonstrating that here
> 'culture' is really a euphemism for 'nation' - a position that few
> activists dare to directly articulate. That there is an Aboriginal nation
> can be shown, and it's existence is slowly being realised.
>
> The sooner the better.
The trouble with that is that the term "aboriginal" covers a lot of
different tribes, and they might not agree on a lot of things. So we'd have
self-declared spokespeople whom some support, and others don't know from a
bar of soap. Maybe they should think in terms not of an Aboriginal Nation,
but several Nations. In the USA, they don't have a global Amerindian Nation
(or whatever the current PC word is), but a number of individual ones, like
a Sioux one, etc. Maybe this is a model to go for - if there should be a
separate Nation or separate nations at all.
Whether these separate Nations are a good thing - I am not sure.
-- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db
"The Famous Druid"
--
---
Stonehenge - just bang the rocks together guys.
Tom Davies <t...@netspace.net.au> wrote in article
<355E3EB7...@netspace.net.au>...
> Garth Foster wrote:
> >
> > "Do you agree or disagree?"
> [snip]
> > For respondents in the ACT, at least, the answer would appear obvious -
based
> > on the "official" Aborigines disporting themselves outside Old
Parliament
> > House as a permanent display of Aboriginal culture.
>
> I have never seen the aboriginals outside old parliament house, and in
> any case their behaviour is entirely their business and is none of mine.
>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the aboriginals outside old
> parliament house are indeed dirty and lazy. What does that tell you
> about aboriginals in general, Garth?
Have you ever seen anyone, regardless of race, who's living in a tent
and doesn't look dirty and lazy ?
Bill Evans
On Sun, 24 May 1998 21:26:07 +0100, MacDiarmid <ro...@clara.net>
wrote:
+
+> When considering the lifestyles and standards of aboriginal people
+> compared to non aboriginals, we have to look at the starting points.
+> As recently as 3 generations ago, the bulk of aboriginal people were
+> still living their tradition hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Non
+> aboriginals had, over several thousand years developed into an
+> industrial/agrarian lifestyle. In 3 generations, aboriginal people
+> have progressed through stages of social development to about the same
+> level as existed in Europe about 200 years ago.
+>
+> That is a massive leap. In another 2 or 3 generations they should,
+> given appropriate assistance, be right up with the rest of us. Be
+> patient people, and try to understand what you are asking.
+>
+> Bill Evans
+ *O hahahaha, Billy boy, what a comic you are! So the abos are now at
+the level of Sir Isaac Newton's life and times, are they? Any Abo
+Voltaires turned up yet? Sorry, let's be fair, go back a little bit
+more. Come now, there must be an Abo Copernicus - an Abo Galileo?*
+
+ * Billy boy, what are you saying here? How about Abo Plato? Well,
+Abo Diogenes, he lived in a barrel over 2000 years ago, not 200. So the
+abos are well past the Ancient Greeks, according to you.*
+
+ *The abos are well past the level of my dog, Billy boy. Well past it.
+No doubt about it. Now, let's see, what comes after dog.....*
+
+ *You and those you may be trying to influence do the aborigine people
+no service by pushing this line of semi-literate nonsense, Mr Evans. As
+the children of Homo Erectus, as are we all, they deserve better. They
+deserve, for instance, being taken at their own valuation, not ours.*
+
And what, you mealy mouthed pommy arsehole, does any of your
semi-literate ravings have to do with SOCIAL development?
What the hell would you know about aboriginal people, or their
standards, or their culture,or their history, or their future
aspirations?
Take your racist, condescending crap and crawl back into your frigid
fungii riden little wormhole.
Richard Hickling
> If each tribe is a nation then there about 500+ of them.
There is probably greater cultural unity within Aboriginal Australia than
within non-Aboriginal Australia.
Why do you suggest that a tribe is a nation?
> The idea of a single Aboriginal nation is one thing they don't mind taking
> from the white fella.
Who cares who takes what ideas from whom? But everyone cares about their
property.
Richard Hickling
> > You're right, a culture can not really be represented. However, by
> > claiming to be the 'Aboriginal Embassy' they are demonstrating that here
> > 'culture' is really a euphemism for 'nation' - a position that few
> > activists dare to directly articulate. That there is an Aboriginal nation
> > can be shown, and it's existence is slowly being realised.
> > The sooner the better.
> The trouble with that is that the term "aboriginal" covers a lot of
> different tribes, and they might not agree on a lot of things. So we'd have
> self-declared spokespeople whom some support, and others don't know from a
> bar of soap. Maybe they should think in terms not of an Aboriginal Nation,
> but several Nations. In the USA, they don't have a global Amerindian Nation
> (or whatever the current PC word is), but a number of individual ones, like
> a Sioux one, etc. Maybe this is a model to go for - if there should be a
> separate Nation or separate nations at all.
Well it's time this should be seriously debated. It's time to leave the
questionable road of assimilation and to see that nationhood is a concept that
could help Aborigines gain self-respect and the respect of others in their
continent.
> Whether these separate Nations are a good thing - I am not sure.
They or it exist, whether a good thing or not.
MacDiarmid
I
> *I rest my case. Mulatto Bill stands before you all.*
DRS
Richard Hickling wrote in message <356ADA47...@eurocontrol.fr>...
>> If each tribe is a nation then there about 500+ of them.
>
>There is probably greater cultural unity within Aboriginal Australia than
>within non-Aboriginal Australia.
>
>Why do you suggest that a tribe is a nation?
Because the tribe traditionally regarded themselves as independent from each
other, with differing languages, laws and customs. The idea of a single
Aboriginal nation is nonsense no matter by whose standard you use, and it is
certainly not to be found among Aboriginal cultures themselves (note the
plural).
>
>> The idea of a single Aboriginal nation is one thing they don't mind
taking
>> from the white fella.
>
>Who cares who takes what ideas from whom? But everyone cares about their
>property.
It matters when that idea is being abused for gain.
Bill Evans
On Tue, 26 May 1998 20:47:35 +0100, MacDiarmid <ro...@clara.net>
wrote:
+I
+> +
+> +> When considering the lifestyles and standards of aboriginal people
+> +> compared to non aboriginals, we have to look at the starting points.
+> +> As recently as 3 generations ago, the bulk of aboriginal people were
+> +> still living their tradition hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Non
+> +> aboriginals had, over several thousand years developed into an
+> +> industrial/agrarian lifestyle. In 3 generations, aboriginal people
+> +> have progressed through stages of social development to about the same
+> +> level as existed in Europe about 200 years ago.
+> +>
+> +> That is a massive leap. In another 2 or 3 generations they should,
+> +> given appropriate assistance, be right up with the rest of us. Be
+> +> patient people, and try to understand what you are asking.
+> +>
+> +> Bill Evans
+> + *O hahahaha, Billy boy, what a comic you are! So the abos are now at
+> +the level of Sir Isaac Newton's life and times, are they? Any Abo
+> +Voltaires turned up yet? Sorry, let's be fair, go back a little bit
+> +more. Come now, there must be an Abo Copernicus - an Abo Galileo?*
+> +
+> + * Billy boy, what are you saying here? How about Abo Plato? Well,
+> +Abo Diogenes, he lived in a barrel over 2000 years ago, not 200. So the
+> +abos are well past the Ancient Greeks, according to you.*
+> +
+> + *The abos are well past the level of my dog, Billy boy. Well past it.
+> +No doubt about it. Now, let's see, what comes after dog.....*
+> +
+> + *You and those you may be trying to influence do the aborigine people
+> +no service by pushing this line of semi-literate nonsense, Mr Evans. As
+> +the children of Homo Erectus, as are we all, they deserve better. They
+> +deserve, for instance, being taken at their own valuation, not ours.*
+> +
+> And what, you mealy mouthed pommy arsehole, does any of your
+> semi-literate ravings have to do with SOCIAL development?
+>
+> What the hell would you know about aboriginal people, or their
+> standards, or their culture,or their history, or their future
+> aspirations?
+>
+> Take your racist, condescending crap and crawl back into your frigid
+> fungii riden little wormhole.
+
+> *I rest my case. Mulatto <and bloody proud of it!> Bill stands before you all.*
In other words, you have no answer. You know absolutely nothing of
aboriginal people or their culture which was well established and
flourishing before your crummy ancestors emerged from the bog. You,
with all your superiority, have one thousand years of history, mainly
of war. We have 50 thousand years of living in harmony with nature and
each other. Suck eggs, fuckwit.