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

[cxlxoxk]

I could if need be even if i didnt like it!
Many other civilisations have adapted to change why didnt they?

I would like to see you try (and fail, and you will fail) to do it...

If you go camping, you need to bring a tent, a torch, basic supplies.

So don't say camping is an example of us living/adapting to that.

Aborigines didn't have torches, they had to make fire from nature. They didn't have the basic supplies, like food/water, they used lakes, and hunted/foraged for food.

 

[walkahz]

What makes you so sure i would fail?

 

[cxlxoxk]

What makes you so sure i would fail?

I just said, if you wanted try it, you would want to bring, some technology.

Then you will miss your computer, mobile and car and go running back to it.

 

[walkahz]

I dont need my computer or fone tbh I get along fine without them.
I could go bush and stay there for months but again WHY WOULD I!!!!!
You are obviously retarded and i am not wasting any more of my sunday arguing the point.

 

[cxlxoxk]

Yeah and they also died of tetanus from really simple injuries and had many women/children die in childbirth.

Great going. If you want to be such a naturist, go do.

You are always using the naturist line when i say something like this...no i don't want to be one just yet...will before i die...

And being a naturist is not bad, if you are content with it, and Aborigines were, they didn't want change. But were forced to face up against it, and they died (most of them), that is why they are such a minority today.

Ok, if aliens came to earth, and said humans are now all our slaves, and they had laser weapons, and ufo technology, that we stand no chance against, would we want to go along with this? Would we survive if we tried to resist change?

 

[Graney]

Yay, I made a winning thread.

 

[zstar]

That's it gentlemen Ku Klux Klan.

White Power

 

[moll.]

Ah fuck i cant beleive I am getting in this.
The true mark of a civilisation is their abillity to adapt!
If the Aboriginies were superiour (spelling) they would have adapted to the changes (not to mention they made very few advances during their thousands of years on the continent).
They did not adapt so they died it is as simple as that.
They are given every opportunity that whites are if not more cough welfare cough.
I belive the government should cut welfare to aboriginals for a year. Maybe that will make them get a job. It will also probably cause a rise in the crime rate however (they wont be able to afford booze so they will steal it).

So the Aboriginals failed to adapt and hence were destroyed. But this begs the question of why it was that it was they, not the British, who were the ones who had to adapt. If the tables had been turned and the British were the ones that had to adapt to Aboriginal culture and lifestyle, they too probably would have failed. So by your own equations, the British culture must be inferior then.
Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[vampiratequeen]

ok first of all
WALKAZ you are a troll


also how would you like it if brent went back to the outback
i mean he is part aboriginal
you would fall apart without him
oh wait
wrong person to use..
hmmmmm

Elysia
if she went back
and disappeared
you would miss you wacko ways
hahaha

and you would not survive without your
omg
GO KART

 

[cxlxoxk]

Ahhhhh i remember this Australian History exercise i did, comparing white man to aliens in the Aborigine's perspective, and it really got me thinking about Aborigines, i wish i could find it =(, so everyone could see.

I think it was something like this, but was like different format and stuff:

Beware, the aliens are already among us.. - Phillip Adams

edit: read that ^ please

or this v, i think it's the same thing:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aar/invasion.htm

 

[Riet]

Umm if some abo kid from redfern went into the bush with no shelter food or water pretty sure they would die within a week too.

 

[Misericorde]

If aliens did invade us, and our technology was as useless as the Indigenous spears were to guns, then we would be defeated. Killed, enslaved, etc. And the reason for our downfall would be that the alien species had a civilisation far more powerful than our own. The other half of 'superiority' would be measured by culture - but comparing a theoretical alien race's arts to ours is a moot point; comparing rock paintings to Michelangelo is perhaps less of one.

Good metaphor, but it doesn't argue your point. Whether one civilisation is 'better' than another may depend on a wide variety of subjective factors, but most assuredly suffering and defeat does not equal superiority. Rather the opposite, in fact - the Mayans (invaded by the Spanish) or the British Angles (by the Saxons and then Romans) are hardly civilisations fanfared with the stifling idealism you throw at the Indigenous people.

To summarise, pity is not a measure by which we denote greatness.

EDIT: In response to cxlxoxk's article.

 

[cxlxoxk]

Yes because they are so messed up...

But the tradtional aborigines lived longer, in such conditions.

I won't point the blame at us (of today no - us in 1788, in 1788, yes), nor will i point the blame at them, knowing their history, what they've been through, to be honest if i was an aborigine, and knew the history, i would wanna resort to drinking alchohol and sniffing petrol to make the pain i would feel, go away.

---

I am not saying Aborigines are great, i am saying they are equal, there are 3 sides...

ATSI (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) is better.

Western World is better.

They are both equal. <- Me

most assuredly suffering and defeat does not equal superiority.

ather the opposite, in fact - the Mayans (invaded by the Spanish) or the British Angles (by the Saxons and then Romans) are hardly civilisations fanfared with the stifling idealism you throw at the Indigenous people.

It should not equal the opposite either, all humans and culture undergo suffering, in areas, at some point.

 

[Riet]

Bullshit. The life expectancy of Aboriginals is lower than for other Australian's but it is still a lot higher than it was 200 years ago.

 

[cxlxoxk]

Bullshit. The life expectancy of Aboriginals is lower than for other Australian's but it is still a lot higher than it was 200 years ago.

Do you have any 300 year old life expectancy statistics?

It wasn't 200 years ago that the british came, actually closer to 300 (250 and above)...

 

[Riet]

Do you have any 300 year old life expectancy statistics?

It wasn't 200 years ago that the british came, actually closer to 300 (250 and above)...

Yeh I do.

http://www.who.int/global_health_histories/seminars/presentation07.pdf

"In 1900 global life expectancy was just 31 years, and below 50 in even the richest countries"

"In 2005 average lifespan reached 65.5 years and over 80 in some countries"
[Australia is one of those countries]

Edit: As Nolan said, if you think life expectancy decreased in the 200 years prior to that, even though the aboriginals had no medicine, and no understanding of disease, infection, etc. whatsoever then you are crazy.

 

[Will Shakespear]

It's fairly commonly taken that life expectancy even 100 years ago was around 25 - 30. Disease, accidents, childbirth (in particular) are all things that we've used science to substantially mitigate.

I'm implying that you extrapolate from there. I'd posit that the average life expectancy of a nomadic people 300 years ago was between 20 - 30 years. It is unarguable to say that the average quality of life for the average indigenous Australian has decreased.

umm, i think you're forgetting there was NO disease until teh british brought it over here

and they were CONTENT with living to 25 and dying in childbirth ok

 

[Riet]

Ah, the noble savage. I love how alphabet over there thinks he's fighting for equality and reason when in actual fact he's arguing parternalistic arguments and going nuts on freedom, lul.

He's essentially arguing that ignorance is bliss.

 

[cxlxoxk]

It's fairly commonly taken that life expectancy even 100 years ago was around 25 - 30. Disease, accidents, childbirth (in particular) are all things that we've used science to substantially mitigate.

I'm implying that you extrapolate from there. I'd posit that the average life expectancy of a nomadic people 300 years ago was between 20 - 30 years. It is unarguable to say that the average quality of life for the average indigenous Australian has decreased.

They weren't alcholics before british came, people didn't die of high instances of alchohol abuse, alcoholic products that they did have, themselves, were only for the elders of the tribe... if you subtract the deaths from alchohol abuse, their life expectancy would be greater...

100 year old data, is not accurate as British brought unknown diseases...they had less disease - less deaths when British weren't there...so i say life expectancy has decreased.

"But we had no defence against their weaponry.

And no immunity from the diseases they brought with them."

from the article

THERE WAS DISEASE BEFORE BRITISH CAME...BUT A WHOLE LOT LESS...

CHILDBIRTH DEATHS ARE NOT AS GREAT AS DEATH FROM ALCOHOL/PETROL/DRUG ABUSE AND DISEASE.

 

[Misericorde]

They weren't alcholics before british came, people didn't die of high instances of alchohol abuse, alcoholic products that they did have, themselves, were only for the elders of the tribe... if you subtract the deaths from alchohol abuse, their life expectancy would be greater...

100 year old data, is not accurate as British brought unknown diseases...they had less disease - less deaths when British weren't there...so i say life expectancy has decreased.

This does not erase the fact they had a hunter/gatherer lifestyle pre-colonisation. Whilst it's all very well to say, that sounds like good exercise and so much fun, it is not the optimal way to live and life expectancies of such primitive practices are (as have been mentioned) 30.